Please note the words "Glenn and McCain's involvement...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-23
In Reply to: Keating Five - Abbie
was minimal."
Abscam and the Keating Five
In 1978, the Federal Bureau of Investigation embarked on a sting operation, labeled Abscam, in which agents posed as Middle Eastern businessmen offering bribes to senators and congressmen. The FBI targeted 31 government officials in total during the operation, including state officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Six congressmen, Democrats John Jenrette of South Carolina, Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania, Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, John Murphy of New York and Frank Thompson of New Jersey, and Republican Richard Kelly of Florida, and one senator, Democrat Harrison Williams of New Jersey, were convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges in 1981.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania also was indicted but not prosecuted because he gave evidence against Murphy and Thompson. Only one lawmaker, Republican Sen. Larry Pressler of South Dakota, refused to take the bribe, saying at the time, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal."
Kelly initially had the conviction overturned when a judge ruled the sting amounted to illegal entrapment, but in 1984, a higher court sentenced Kelly to 13 months in prison. Kelly was famously caught on videotape packing his pockets with $25,000 in cash, asking the undercover agents, "Does it show?"
But as opposed to Abscam tarnishing Congress, it was the FBI that dealt with much of the long-term scrutiny as investigations into their probe brought up the entrapment issue. After Abscam, there have been no published accounts of efforts to catch lawmakers in the act, rather the focus became investigating wrongdoing after the act.
The Keating Five scandal from 1989 implicated five senators in another corruption probe. Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and Alan Cranston of California, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, were accused of strong-arming federal officials to back off their investigation of Charles Keating, former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan association. In exchange, the senators reportedly received close to $1.3 million in campaign contributions.
The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation.
DeConcini and Riegle did not run for re-election in 1994 and were succeeded by Republican Sens. John Kyl and Spencer Abraham.
Looks to me like the Democrats were on the majority wrong end of both of these scandals.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Keating Five - Abbie
- Please note the words "Glenn and McCain's involvement... - sam
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Right. and MORE govt involvement is just asking for
nm
It appears that Roberts involvement in the case was not an endorsement per se. SM
![SF](http://www.sfgate.com/templates/sfgatelogo_xsm.gif") www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
Roberts Helped Group on Gay Rights
- By JON SARCHE, Associated Press Writer
Friday, August 5, 2005
(08-05) 19:27 PDT DENVER (AP) --
A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays — free assistance the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The revelation didn't appear to dent his popularity among conservative groups nor quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.
An attorney who worked with Roberts cautioned against making guesses about his personal views based on his involvement in the Colorado case, which gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.
"It may be that John and others didn't see this case as a gay-rights case," said Walter Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Roberts' former Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson.
Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.
"I don't think this gives you any clear answers, but I think it's a factor people can and should look at to figure out what this guy is made of and what kind of Supreme Court justice he would make," Smith said.
On Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released two memos by Roberts when he was as an assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. In one, Roberts argued that President Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of tributes to God in schools.
In the other, Roberts writes that Reagan shouldn't grant presidential pardons to bombers of abortion clinics. "The president unequivocally condemns such acts of violence," he wrote in a draft reply to a lawmaker seeking Reagan's position. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals."
Meanwhile, the Justice Department denied a request by Judiciary Committee Democrats for Roberts' writings on 16 cases he handled when he was principal deputy solicitor general during President George H.W. Bush's administration. The department also declined to provide the materials, other than those already publicly available, to The Associated Press and other organizations that sought them under the Freedom of Information Act.
"We cannot provide to the committee documents disclosing the confidential legal advice and internal deliberations of the attorneys advising the solicitor general," assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote Friday to the eight committee Democrats.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, said Roberts made decisions whether to pursue legal appeals in more than 700 cases. "The decision to keep these documents under cover is disappointing," Leahy said.
The gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.
Gay rights groups sued, and the measure was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.
Roberts' role in the case, disclosed this week by the Los Angeles Times, included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.
Dubofsky, who did not return calls Friday, said Roberts helped develop the strategy that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution — and prepared her for tough questions from conservative members of the court. She recalled how Justice Antonin Scalia asked for specific legal citations.
"I had it right there at my fingertips," she told the Times. "Roberts was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."
Dubofsky had never argued before the Supreme Court. Smith said she called his firm and asked specifically for help from Roberts, who argued 39 cases before the court before he was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in 2003.
Smith said any lawyer at Hogan & Hartson would have had the right to decline to work on any case for moral, religious or other reasons.
"If John had felt that way about this case, given that he is a brilliant lawyer, he would have just said, `This isn't my cup of tea' and I would have said, `Fine, we'll look for something else that would suit you,'" Smith said.
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which helped move the case through the state and federal courts, said Roberts' involvement raised more questions about him than it answered because of his "much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose," executive director Kevin Cathcart said.
"This is one more piece that will be added to the puzzle in the vetting of John Roberts' nomination," Cathcart said.
The Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said his support for Roberts' nomination has not diminished. "He wasn't the lead lawyer. They only asked him to play a part where he would be Scalia in a mock trial," Sheldon said.
Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said Roberts' involvement was "certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," but did not prompt new concerns about his nomination, which the group supports.
"That's what lawyers do — represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," the group said in a statement.
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/05/national/w135401D98.DTL
Socialism involves state/government involvement
and they therefore help make decisions for those businesses. That is pure socialism. I was just waiting for their butts to get involved in the banks like this.....I'm sure they were planning this from the onset of this crisis.
Those types of words are unnecessary and actually ARE racist words. sm
Those types of phrases are offensive and are intended to be offensive. This election should not be about race. If it is about race for you, then you are probably one of the ignorant people using those words. Very rude!!
You're right....words are just words...so are Obama's...
...and don't/won't mean anything to many people, myself included.
He is no MLK.
It is a historic moment, of that I have no doubt. And yes, he has come far.
However, one still needs to have strength of character to back the words up for true meaning, and he is sadly lacking in that area.
On a serious note...
....I thank you for your response. While I agree boxes probably arent' the best idea sometimes they make complicated ideologies a little simpler to understand, I guess.
Actually I would be very interested in learning all the posters on these boards beliefs/ideologies/hopes for the future. I think we could do this without undermining each other or bashing. Perhaps I'll post it at the top of the board some time as a new topic.
and on that note...
Who gained the most benefit from keeping it a secret, and/or keeping the rumor afloat that he is still out there somewhere?
Note to sam
Sam, just wondering if when you post a legitimate question on the board could you please change your name. It seems like anything you ask anymore people are bashing you. You put up some very good questions (sorry can't answer this one as I'm not knowlegable enough to know what the outcome would be -it's all too confusing), but it seems as though people are going to attack you for anything. Now if there is an argument you want to make that's one thing, but its not right that you put up a question and people are attacking you for that. - just a suggestion.
One more note
Was curious to see what people would say to my post. I expected the O supporters to bash me for my opinion. That's the way this board is run, but I was curious so came back. For all of you thinking this is one sided - I voted for Obama! I supported Obama! I donated money to his campaign. I fought tooth and nail on this board to defend Obama. I got into some rough ones with some of the republicans on this board. But as time has gone on I have researched and learned more about Obama and I do not like what I am finding out. I come to this board to hopefully get some insightful information and it IS mostly the democrats bashing and attacking posters who are for McCain. I would say 95% dems bashing republicans and 5% republicans defending themselves by coming back at the posters who originally bashed them. Facts are facts and its in black and white on this board. And they bash Palin without cause. I just say it like it is (sorry you don't like to admit it). Like the poster below said - guess only half the pixels on your monitor work.
If you had any type of open mind you would read through every single post and you would see the Obama supporters bashing the McCain supporters more, calling them every name in the book while in the same breath saying its all them against you (and the posts below are proof of that). The posts below show you don't have open minds, you don't search out facts. You are blindly led around like a bunch of sheep.
God help us if Obama gets in there. I for one don't want to live my life with the likes of Farrahan, Wright, Resko, and Ayers (to name a few) dictating how we should be living. Farrakan's the creepiest of all, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to live like that.
Please note....(sm)
I think Phelps and his daughter were banned back in Feb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm
There are also a number of people on the list whose names have not been published. I would love to see the entire list.
Note, what I said was
You prepare for what an opponent might do, not what he appears to be doing at the moment. Situations change in an instant, stuff happens, appearances may be misleading. You don't encumber both hands when you could be attacked, especially if there's more than one. Doesn't mean attack them first, but you stay ready for the possibility that they might attack you. Military training and just plain common sense.
Please note....(sm)
We are talking about Obama here, not Bush the war monger.
"There will always be a war that he needs them for and if there isn't one he will create one."
You do realize that Obama was one of the few senators who voted completely against the Iraq war? What makes you think he wants to stay in a war when all he has done is talk about how we need to get out of it? That is just completely irrational.
"Why do you say the GOP is not funding the troops."
Ummm....because the vast majority of pubs in the house just voted against a funding bill?
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
Note to gt......off topic
It's me - the one who's been posting under all the gt alias joke monikers. I just had to blow off steam after the conservative board debacle last night. Don't know why I get involved in it. My fall equinox resolution will be to inform, not condemn.
Thanks for tolerating my not-that-funny-ha-ha little joke.
note: this was in no way gay-bashing, as i am gay too,
but i just had to laugh at the mental image of a pitbull with lipstick, trying its best not to look like a 'klondyke'.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
just a note from factcheck.org
A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
On a lighter note.....sm
Stuff I didn't know about.......
Meet Obama's bodyman: The White House 'Chief of Stuff' who caters to the President's every whim
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127223/Meet-Obamas-bodyman-The-White-House-Chief-Stuff-caters-Presidents-whim.html
Agree and just want to add to your note that
that Bush WOULD NOT meet with those of the fallen. He out-and-out dissed them. So, even though none of this mess is Obama's making, he met with those who mourn and actually listened to their views. He did so much more in that 45 minutes than Bush ever did.
Note to mythbuster...(sm)
Off our meds, are we? - Mythbuster (Views: 33, 2009-03-10)
You might want to clean up your own backyard before you start on someone else's.
I think the thing to note here...(sm)
is not so much that he had an affair. People do that all the time. I personally think it's nobody's business, and that's how I felt about Clinton as well. However, what we have here is a guy who has been preaching "family values" as a campaign slogan for how many years? and then this comes out. It's the blatant hipocrisy that I can't stand.
Also, this guy was supposedly a good candidate for VP next time around. If something like this had been found out about Biden, the rght would have had a field day with it, just like they did with Clinton.
More on that note....France, that non...
judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.
In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.
And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol
Please note that American Woman is not AG
Thanks Brunson for you objective views....it is refreshing. You know how to respectfully post and carry on an adult conversation.
The only reason I am posting here is to state this even though it's blatantly obvious American Woman is not me.
I read here, but I don't post here. I might post my responses to posts here on the C board....but other than to clarify like I'm doing now I don't post here....I made a mistake on Friday posting here, but I got my boards mixed up. Have a great day!
Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m. Humor is lost on you all...
OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
Please note sources within this article...
http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/oil-drilling
Here's a funny for you. Note the date.
James I. Blakslee
"Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"
"Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"
"Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."
"Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."
I get a kick out of that.
A note about your socialism comment sm
We do not have socialism except for that big bank bailout that was under Bush's leadership, (lack of leadership). All your sorry arguments of months ago are now moot points. Stop being a sore loser. Nobody cares about the birth certificate, about Ayers, about Rev Wright, about fake socialism, about your phoney crooked republican manipulations. Suck it up and be a real American and follow the new president.
And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.
On the whole religion note, I just read yesterday
about how McCain people are calling Jewish neighborhoods and making false statements about Obama. They start out saying they are polling or something, and then it gets into their religion - making false statements about Obama. The people that were called from McCain's people were very upset about this, that they would call and say these things. One woman even asked a question about it and the person on the other end of the phone said they wouldn't qualify for the poll if they weren't Jewish or they wouldn't have been called if they didn't live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood. I think that is disgusting.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.
This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.
The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).
The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
Nothing but words hon, and we know how Obama's words
nm
please note...the title line of the previous post were....
sim's words, not mine. Refer to her/his post.
On a lighter note, a bipartisan funny card (sm)
http://www.americangreetings.com/ecards/view.pd?i=474735065&m=2086&rr=y&source=ag999
While the "poo" is flying, let's note I did not make my post about whether...sm
I agreed with the stimulus package, because if you read further back on this board, I have been stating my opposition clearly for weeks, and just what I have problems with! This post was about a thinly-veiled, very inflammatory, crude, demeaning, hurtful "comic," and not just for the President, many African-Americans were hurt by this, and wrong is wrong, I am keeping my post specifically to this one point, I am sick of "pubs" or anyone else clouding issues by dragging other irrelevant issues in. The Post really demeaned themselves by publishing this, and they know it!!
You fail to note that the Army Corp of Engineers....
is a federal entity and it was THEIR job to fix the levies, too bad W cut all the funding so he could play Monopoly in Iraq.
Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm
stuff about utilities, cuz I sure see it on here a lot. I guess it was okay when Saddam was in power cuz people could flush their toilets and drown out the screams of those being tortured and raped.
Why are you McCain people so desperate? You are just like McCain. No plan. Just criticism of the
other candidate. I guess you want the same old thing we have had for the past 8 years. God forbid McCain win with that wild woman, Palin.
Just a few words
For you to even think something like that shows you have it in your brain. I would never post some of the derogatory posts you and your friends from the conservative board have posted to me and to others. Does it bother you that much that I post strong opinions and refuse to be cowed by nasty responses? I have thick skin and I can roll with the punches. Seems to me every time I post you and your friends just have to respond, no matter what I post. By you responding so forcefully shows you are threatened by my ideology and the bigger picture, the liberal/democratic ideology. Be happy with your beliefs and espouse them but stop attacking people for their beliefs..In other words, chill out..you will do your heart a favor. This is a free country, my opinions are mine and I will continue to have them. Nothing you say will change my beliefs..so dont waste your time trying..I also must say, if you want to talk about people sounding like lunatics, re-read some of the conservative posts. A few profess to never attack or call names, yeah right, there is so much back biting and name calling on that board..but hey, its fair game when you are dealing with politics. they are all just words, nothing more. My bigger quest is to help turn this country around to the country I knew and loved through grass roots politics, belonging to the local democratic party and making sure the right ones get in mid year elections and in three years. This is just a politics board, LOL, nothing that gets my blood pressure elevated, that is for sure..The majority of Americans feel we are headed down the wrong track and our priorities are wrong. The latest poll shows the people losing faith and trust in Bush and his credibility is going down. The majority think Iraq was a mistake and worry that attacking Iraq made us less secure and more prone to attacks. Seems to me my opinions and those of most that post on the liberal board (save for the few conservatives who post here to attack and disrupt) are in the mainstream of American thought, fears and concerns. Now, I would hope the attacks will stop, as I will not respond to them anymore. If you want to debate, post the debate and Im sure many will join in but no one wants to be part of a board where crazy accusations such as you and yours have been posting about me keep getting posted.
Yes, among other words. NM
These were your words.
Still on this board!!! Tell me how what you said below is the same as:
As far as Iraq, of course, you twisted that all out of context. Lurker asked if I would go to Iraq to help rebuild and I said yes, if I could I would, but please don't tell the truth and continue to twist because you are twisted.
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all. NM
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Liberals]
Posted By: MT on 2005-08-24,
In Reply to: Ridiculous...I think not - Lurker
There are no words, only
thoughts and prayers. I am so very sorry.
HER words (yet again):
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all.
Not *would* join.... WILL JOIN. WILL GO AGAIN. WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those who believe in telling the truth can easily see the distortion.
The key words are
*announced* and *Bin Laden.*
Clinton announced to AMERICANS that he was specifically targeting Bin Laden. Remember him? HE was the guy responsible for 9/11, and HE is the guy that Bush ignored to instead invade Iraq.
Clinton wasn't targeting average Americans who are trying to pay off their J. C. Penney bills, and Clinton never used intimidating tactics towards American citizens.
Bush doesn't know how to do anything BUT use secrets, intimidation and fear tactics.
Words
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I would choose to have an abortion, or choose to end life (which to me, are still 2 different things). I said that I believe in choice.
I have two words for you. SM
Walid Shoebat. I am willing to bet he knows way more than your professor about the Middle East and he doesn't agree with either one of you.
Wow! In her own words no less. I do not want any
.
Two words
There is a word spelled choose and a word spelled chose. They certainly are confused a lot these days.
Choose is present tense and chose is past tense. They are pronounced differently.
I'm not picking on the poster; just making a general observation about a term many people misuse.
what a way with words . . .
guffaw.
WOW, you use BIG words, just like O!
I am so happy for you!
In their own words
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
I'd love to know why I should have to bail out anyone. If my husband and I overextended ourselves and spent like drunken sailors we'd have nobody to blame but ourselves. So in that same concept we should turn to someone and essentially hand the bill for it over to him/her?
Also, as a Texan, we'll now be on the hook for billions (per the radio) from Ike. My husband and I don't HAVE a billion here, a billion there. They throw around million, billion, and trillion like it's petty cash!
|
