Talk:Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal

message: Use of copyrighted images is not allowed.  It appears this article has had copyvio problems before.  It's time to kill it before it embarrasses Wikipedia any further.  --John Henry 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide the website you believe the article is being copied from. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason you gave in nominating the article for speedy deletion is that the image is copyrighted. You are welcome to nominate the image for deletion at WP:IFD, but a copyrighted image is not a reason to delete the entire article text. Feel free to nominate the image at IFD, but don't place a speedy or copyvio tag on the article again. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now you've added the copyvio tag, but you neglected to show what website you're asserting its text is copied from. Please provide it, or the copyvio tag needs to come off.  · Katefan0(scribble) 04:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, well, this is an easy fix.  I'll remove the image. Feel free to deal with the image itself from here on WP:IFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: COPYVIO

message: Replaced text entirely I removed the entire possible copyvio text from the Reed article and replaced it with the text I wrote for Abramoff. This was the original intention.--Gorgonzilla 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as info, Gorgonzilla does the history behind this material continue to reside at the original site?  I'd be concerned if material sourcing gets lost in these transfers.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end I just deleted the Reed article entirely, it was not very good, it was simply a series of cut and paste quotes, probably fair use but no citations and no narrative. I took about four paragraphs from the Abramoff story and then expanded. The current wording is mine. --Gorgonzilla 14:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio FIXED 

message: Is that Abramoff? It sure looks like Norquist to me. Daniel Case 05:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Right picture?

message: Can you provide a link to the information you feel is a copyvio? · Katefan0(scribble) 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allleged copyvio 

message: Abramoff investigation has GOP holding its breath
CIA leak probe may be getting more attention, but troubles surrounding former lobbyist worry Republicans more.
Advertisement
  
Dennis Cook/ASSOCIATED PRESS
(enlarge photo)
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, right, with lawyer Abbe Lowe on Capitol Hill, is being investigated by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for his past lobbying activities on behalf of Indian casinos. 
  
By Scott Shepard
WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, October 16, 2005
WASHINGTON — A grand jury investigating the White House leak of a CIA agent's name is expected to wrap up its work in the next couple of weeks, but it is another investigation — of former Republican superstar lobbyist Jack Abramoff — that has the Republican political establishment holding its breath.
Abramoff is at the center of ever more complicated inquiries that touch on subjects as wide-ranging as allegations of influ- ence-peddling in Congress and the White House, a gangland-style slaying in Florida and political shenanigans in Guam.
And while the CIA leak investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, now in its second year, has yet to yield indictments, the investigations of Abramoff have resulted, so far, in bank fraud charges against him; obstruction charges against David Safavian, the Bush administration's former chief procurement official; and the withdrawal of President Bush's nomination of Timothy Flanigan, a onetime associate of Abramoff, to be the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.
Abramoff has had close connections with leading Republicans, including Bush; U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, the former House majority leader; Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; party strategist Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform; and strategist Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition executive director and Bush campaign official who is now running for lieutenant governor of Georgia.
Ethical 'linchpin'
Karl Rove, Bush's longtime senior political strategist and the White House deputy chief of staff, testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury for a fourth time Friday.
Rove "has some serious problems," said Naomi Seligman, spokeswoman for the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "But while most of Washington is focused on Mr. Rove, we know that the linchpin to the ethical downfall of the White House and some members of Congress is the Abramoff investigation."
Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter, agreed that the Abramoff investigation is "the one that they (Republicans) are really worried about" because it has the potential of tarring the party.
"This is a real one," Cook said. "It has the potential to take the scandal issue to the next level."
Republicans are clearly nervous. Two prominent GOP figures, Santorum and Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have returned campaign donations that they received from Safavian.
"We just felt, with so many unanswered questions, that was in the best interest," Santorum media consultant John Brabender said.
A federal multiagency task force and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee are investigating Abramoff's past lobbying activities on behalf of Indian casinos, which reportedly netted him as much as $82 million in fees, and his golfing trips for members of Congress and other Republican luminaries.
Congressional Democrats have called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Abramoff played a role in the demotion of a federal prosecutor in Guam in 2002 after the prosecutor started investigating a lobbying deal between Abramoff and Guam court officials. Their actions were prompted by an article in the Los Angeles Times this month suggesting that Rove might have been involved in the demotion.
Abramoff also is slated to stand trial in Florida in January on bank fraud charges in connection with his 2000 purchase, with partner Adam Kidan, of the SunCruz gambling ships from Greek financier Gus Boulis. They are accused of defrauding lenders in the $147 million purchase.
In an unusual twist of events, Boulis was shot to death at the wheel of his BMW sedan shortly after leaving his office one evening in February 2001, about a month after he had filed suit against Abramoff and Kidan, accusing them of failing to pay him $23 million in connection with the SunCruz sale.
Throughout the investigation, lawyers for Abramoff and Kidan repeatedly have said their clients know nothing about the circumstances of Boulis' death, and last month two men from Florida and a third from New York, none of whom have any known ties to Abramoff, were charged in the slaying.
Abramoff's lawyer, Neal Sonnett of Miami, did not respond to requests for comment.
Consequences
Safavian's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, said federal officials are pressuring her client, who once worked in a lobbying firm with Abramoff, to cooperate in their investigation of Abramoff. She accused the officials of "a creative use of the criminal code to secure his cooperation."
Safavian became the first government official charged in the corruption inquiry related to Abramoff's activities in Washington when, in a complaint filed by the FBI in mid-September, he was accused of making repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a congressional golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002 and of concealing his efforts to help Abramoff acquire federally managed property in Washing- ton.
The 2002 golf trip has attracted a lot of attention because it included not only Abramoff and Safavian, then the chief of staff of the General Services Administration, but also Reed and Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee. It was similar to a 2000 trip that DeLay made to England and Scotland for which part of the expenses were charged to a credit card of Abramoff's.
House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists, but DeLay and Ney have both said they thought the trips were financed through a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, whose board of directors included Abramoff.
Flanigan, a former deputy counsel for Bush, had his Justice Department nomination withdrawn this month, the day after the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to question him further about his ties to Abramoff. Before joining the Bush administration, Flanigan worked for Tyco International Ltd. as a lawyer, a position in which he oversaw Abramoff's lobbying efforts for the Bermuda-based company.
From 2002 to 2004, Tyco paid Abramoff's firm $2.1 million to stop congressional efforts to deny federal contracts to companies that moved offshore to save on U.S. taxes.
The Judiciary Committee's action was prompted by a written response from Flanigan in which the Bush nominee said that Abramoff, one of the elite "Pioneer" fundraisers for the Bush presidential campaign, had boasted of his contacts with Rove.
The committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the questions raised about Flanigan's ties to Abramoff "merit answers."
'Exploitation, deceit'
Abramoff has largely avoided public events since he and onetime partner Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide, endured blistering attacks from members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigating the fees that they received for lobbying on behalf of six casino-operating tribes.
The committee released hundreds of e-mails that Abramoff and Scanlon exchanged during their representation of the tribes, some of which referred to their clients as "idiots" and "troglodytes" and celebrated the hefty fees that they received. "Is life great or what!" Abramoff wrote in one.
While "every kind of charlatan and every type of crook" has exploited American Indians since the sale of Manhattan Island, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the committee chairman, "what sets this tale apart, what makes it truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the apparent exploitation and deceit."
grazon 23:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had to put this somewhere 

message: This story made the Washington Post again.  Rumour has it that there are indictments pending, hence the interest in this story despite the fact that the Rove-Libbey-Miller scandal and the DeLay (Texas) scandal are dominating the headlines.
I think that our article has got a little out of hand towards the end. Instead of a separate heading for every Congressman or staffer who has a connection to Abramoff I think that only the principals should have separate sections and the rest listed in a condensed bullet point list. I suggest that the principles here are :
*Abramoff - Reed - Norquist (the original triumvirate) Scanlon (partner)
*DeLay, Ney (the golfers) Burns
*Safavian (plea bargain)
There are a couple of other staffers who seem to be implicated in a major way but the current structure of the article does not mention them while having a separate heading for every congressman who accepted a campaign donation. --Gorgonzilla 04:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Major re-org 

message: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html?referrer=emaillink
yes that's fair use of an item that Wash Post is giving away free Rjensen 19:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we add this? 

message: Sen. Dorgan Returns Tribes' Donations 
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1205/285514.html
:It's been added. This article is a bit lopsided at the moment, focusing primarily on donations to Republicans.  There is involvement by politicians in both parties in this scandal.--Ombudsperson 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this must be added!!! 

message: Google returned 9 results for this phrase. I don't think it's necessary, unless it becomes more prevalent. --Wasabe3543 04:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "InGam Scam" 

message: FYI, I'm currently working on putting together some form of table with the money data here. I used the CRP list and attempted to automatically determine when the person was a US Representative or Senator. it would be helpful if you can look at some of the entries with ?? and either Wiki-link them to the correct names and/or identify where/how they serve in government. Thanks. -Kwh 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI most of the money was related to US Congress campaigns in 2000-2006, so some of the individuals are failed candidates, some got the job, and some moved on to other positions (Spencer Abraham and Brian Schweitzer, for instance). The way I am working the data in the table, I am trying to use "Representation" to represent what they were running for, and (can.) if they were a failed candidate, but am listing the secondary office if they ran elsewhere and succeeded (e.g. Schweitzer ran for Senate, failed, and ran for Governor and won - therefore I listed Governor). I may have some of these wrong. Also, I don't understand the inclusion of "Tom Foley" - the most 'famous' Tom Foley did not run for office 2000-2006, so I don't know if this is him or someone else.-Kwh 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money Data 

message: I'm just going to put this opinion out there. 
Two Three things that I hate in Wikipedia articles:
*Bullet points
*Timelines
*Parentheticals (If you structure your sentences properly, you shouldn't have to use them).
*(Yes, that's intended to be somewhat ironic)
I feel that they should both ALL be eschewed if at all possible. I think that bullet points are a warning sign that data is being expounded on at a level of detail more verbose than necessary for an encyclopedia, and I think that timelines are just a lazy way of putting up information; a good writer should be able to report the story in a way more engaging to the reader than dates and blurbs. I'm not saying that there isn't a time or place where bullets and timelines are necessary, but I don't think it's here. -Kwh 04:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny, I clicked on this Talk page specifically to request that a timeline be written for this.  E.g., I want to know: when did Abramoff first come under investigation?  I can't find this here, at least not quickly without reading the whole thing.  A timeline would really help 208.59.115.183 07:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style - Bullets and Timelines 

message: Pretty much the whole section on Bob Ney has copyright problems, with similarities to a CREW press release and  a RAW STORY article. There's too many similarities for coincidence. Unless the person who contributed this can provide proof that both of these sources have provided release to GFDL, this entire section needs to be rewritten from scratch without reference to the prior. I now need to pick through the rest of the article to see if there is any other risk of WP:CP that might cause the whole article to need to be rewritten.
People - don't do this to Wikipedia. It puts the values of Wikipedia at risk, and at the end of the day you're just cheating yourself of valuable writing experience. Research the facts and report them in your own words. Unless you are quoting an individual's specific words for effect, don't copy anything word for word, or even just change every third word. This is not freshman composition and that won't cut it. -Kwh 05:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Research shows that the questionable information was originally pasted into the Jack Abramoff article on July 15 by a certain anonymous IP, and was later copied from Jack Abramoff over to this article. -Kwh 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Here's some things that I think people might need to focus on to make the article better:
*Focus on the actual story of how Abramoff/Reed worked together. For example, according to the emails, Abramoff was using Reed to organize phone banks and letter campaigns against the Interior Dept and other candidates from people who had a religious objection to gambling, while ironically the net effect supported the tribal gambling.
*The Gale Norton connection; I recall from the emails that Abramoff funneled cash to Norton's former environmental PAC, possibly to get access in the Interior.
*A Dramatis Personae - not literally, but at least explain the various tribes involved and some of their motivations (one tribe wanted the others casino shut down, etc.)
*Add more quotes from the emails (which are public record) to support the allegations.
-Kwh 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some things to do 

message: Is there a resource we can use to put a timeline of Abramoff-related contributions (or contributions from his clients) to politicians?  For instance, how far back has Abramoff been donating or had the tribes donating?  209.62.224.224 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: "Many politicians have returned or donated money received from Abramoff or his clients. According to CBS, over 100 law makers have donated Abramoff related money to charitiy. It is not yet clear if donating the money give tax advantages in a way that returning the money does not."
:I'm not sure the insinuation on donating for tax purposes belongs in there. IANAL but I am pretty certain that a political campaign (527) is always tax-exempt anyways. Seems to be a pretty simply answered question. -Kwh 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donate for taxes 

message: http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1830
:Wow. I don't know about the bias of that paper (seems to definitely focus on left politics) but that tells a very compelling story. -Kwh 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor tribes 

message: I created a page at wikisource to transcribe the voluminous Abramoff emails released by the SIAC. This is where all the meat and potatoes are. If you have any ability with OCR software you might give it a try, I'm going to work my way through the pages 1 by 1 with OCR and correction. This 'full text' doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the web so this should be a killer thing if folks pitch in and help out. I did one page as an example. Try to stick to headings (and a "----" at the bottom) for each page so that we can sublink it as a source. Thanks, -Kwh 08:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A surprise! 

message: At the risk of opening another can of worms, I think it is worthwhile to keep a (well documented) mention of Democrats in the main article, especially as these tenuous links are being used to suggest that the Abramoff Scandal is not partisan.  In particular Clyburn and Thompson are usually mentioned as having recieve tainted, well, travel from Abramoff.  This news story at sfgate seems a pretty neutral reference.
--mik 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one is to use that article, I think it may be wise to at least mention that the two congressman say that they were lead to believe that a foundation was paying for the trip, which is legal.  Also, this article is something like 8 months old.  I'm wondering if there is any more recent article on those two which may reveal whether anything new has been found out, or if they've given back the money, etc. FleetAdmiralJ 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I actually suggested that article (really from AP, though I cannot find it on the AP site) because it included references to the foundation.  As far as I have been able to tell, these two were called to testify and basically said (with documentation) that they had no way of knowing that the foundation didn't pay for their trips like they strongly implied they would.  There seems to be conflicting information that Abramoff's law firm did actually get reimbursed by the marianas, presumably rendering the money untainted, even if complience with house ethics rules is still questionable (opening the question of whether Repubs were similarly misled, including DeLay).  In the end, mention of Dem links should probably either be promoted to a higher level or moved to a marianas page, as this particular issue has nothing to do with the Indian lobbying scandals...  On the other hand, news reports keep suggesting that all donations from all Abramoff clients are somehow tainted - extremely silly, but perhaps worth addressing directly in the article bodies.  Ack, what a mess. --mik 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you understand the scandal if you believe this.  Abramoff plead guilty to essentially "playing both sides of the street".  The way it worked is he had one Indian client wanting a piece of legislation and another wanting it defeated.  Abramoff ginned up support for both sides, paying off the politicians to support/thwart legislation with his clients money and driving up his own fees.  He used both Democrat and Republican lawmakers to be on either side of the issue.  This was a form of fraud and this is what the Abramoff scandal is.  It has nothing to do with his direct contribution or his party affiliation.  Tbeatty 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abramoff admitted to playing both sides for and against building the casinos, but that was not a partisan split. It was not Democrats for casinos and Republicans against. It was one tribe against another. There is no record of Abramoff ever meeting with any Democrat. That is not how Washington works, another partner at the same law firm, Platt was responsible for lobbying Democrats. But there is no evidence that Platt ever tried to bribe anyone. Platt was not renting out four skyboxes at sports arenas or running restaurants, so he had considerably less scope to give away free tickets and food to lawmakers and staffers in return for access and favors. Also note that the law firm was also a target of the fraud, Abramoff was bilking them as well by taking kickbacks. It is only Abramoff and his partner Scanlon who have admitted bribery and so far the only people that have been identified as recipients of the bribes are Republicans. --Gorgonzilla 01:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't a partisan split for/against casinos and that was my point.  There is no evidence of bribes, but rather money was funneled to lawmakers from Abramoff.  Both parties were the recipients of Abramoff's clients money and gifts and Abramoff played both sides of the casinos.  It is believed there is a link  between that money and the legislation that was created, supported or thwarted.  Both parties participated in this and took the money.   There is no admission or charge of bribery.  Harry Reid, possibly unwittingly, was a part of this.  In exchange for money from an Abramoff client, he opposed a casino because it would have competed with another of Abramoff's clients.  Reid got his campaign contribution and Abramoff got his fee from both tribes.  Tbeatty 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, no one disputes that Abramoff's personal contributions went ONLY to Republican politicians.  Second, campaign contribution records show that he directed sharply increased tribal giving to Republican poliiticans (many of whom had gotten NOTHING before) while reducing or keeping steady contributions to Democratic politicians, virtually ALL of whom had already been involved with tribes (had supported them, had received contributions) prior to Abramoff becoming a lobbyist for the tribes.  Third, Abramoff helped with fundraising ONLY for Republicans.  Fourth, there is no evidence that Reid did anything that he would not have otherwise done without Abramoff, unlike other (Republican) politicians, who evidenced sudden concern with tribal affairs and other things that Abramoff had interests in.  In short, it's not a scandal if tribes contributed to give money to Democrats with whom they had an ongoing relationship, and it's not a scandal if Reid voted consistently with what he'd done before, and it's not a scandal if Abramoff's records show that he contacted Reid's office.  (And yes, I think that Democrats can be corrupt, and corrupted; I just think this is a situation where a lot of people - Republicans, generally, starting with George W. Bush - want this to be seen as a bipartisan scandal, when in fact it is not and never has been.)  John Broughton 18:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Democrats' involvement 

message: I don't know how you could not call his comments racists, calling a group of people troglodytes is clearly racist, that's about as racist as you can get.  You're essentially comparing a group of people to cavemen, I really can't think of a more racist comment, seriously.  If I wanted to insult someone's race I would say that they are barbarians, or thugs, or cavemen, the People all over the world did that stuff all the time, to promote racial superiority.--M4bwav 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the reader make the judgement. There's no need to use a negative Power Word which would probably be considered controversial by others. There's no evidence that Abramoff believed in some theory of racial supremacy of Jewish persons of Russian extraction. He also called them mofos, but that was probably not meant literally. KWH 19:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's fair i guess. Though, realistically it is racist, whenever you condemn a race of people you are promoting people not of that race.  But yeah, I guess you might as well let everyone's decide that.--M4bwav 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abramoff's racist comments

message: Something I thought I would point out: It appears that 2 this email from Scanlon to Abramoff transcribed on wikisource.org contains the beginning of the actual "conspiracy" in the Indian lobbying scandal. Reproduced in full:
A few weeks ago you mentioned something to me. I took the concept and have put together a 
plan that will make serious money. We also talked briefly about it in the beginning of the
year but I think wo can really move it now. Here are the broad strokes; I have been making 
contacts with some larger Public Affairs companies in town for a few months. I have two 
solid relationships that will seriously consider acquiring Capitol Campaign Strategies. 
The problem is that there is not much in CCS riqht now. However, if we build up Capitol 
Campaign Strategies enough I can get it acquired by a large firm by the end of next year 
at 3x the firm revenue. Bottom line: If you belp me get CCS a client base of $3 million a 
year, I will get the clients served, and the firm acquired at S9 million. We can then 
split the up the profits. What do you think? 
Although Abramoff and Scanlon were "skimming" a lot off the bogus consulting services which weren't provided, the big payoff was the $9 million they expected to get at the end. I think these sort of details on the actual crime, more than the political effects, are more interesting. KWH 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beginning 

message: Ralph Reed
Don't know which one this is, sorry.  pls fix--66.41.169.244 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig needing fixed

message: I had a thought that the focus of this article would be specifically on the scam Abramoff ran on the Coushatta, Tigua, etc... This scam began in 2001, the below text from the article obviously has to do with events 1999-2000, which are already largely covered at Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.
Does anyone else think this article needs to refocus? See the notes at Jack Abramoff timeline starting at "2001-2006 - He lobbied Congress and the administration on behalf of Native American tribes, some of which he has plead guilty to defrauding." KWH 03:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of article 

message: Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tom DeLay]] peer review 

message: I highly recommend reading the final report, this is really the Rosetta Stone to the whole scandal. KWH 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy smokes 

message: * 69.210.146.123 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  access to bush 

message: The title of the article??  Who the heck came up with this:  "Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal"????  I think the whole thing can be described without the word Indian.  The implication is that the Indians, and for full disclosure I'm one, were working in concert with Abramoff and his clones and they understood and agreed with everything that Abramoff and his losers were doing.  Why can't that name for changed?  Am I missing something?  Does the word Indian have to be in the Wikipedia article name???--Getaway 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The title of the article is wrong

message: I am attempting to expand and refactor this article to include much of the research from the Final Report from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. I am trying to keep it roughly chronological and just hitting the high points. The notes at Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor may also be useful. This is a work in progress so please do not "cleanup", but continue to expand and refactor the existing material. Thanks, KWH 03:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: I have reverted the addition of this new section to the article for several reasons:
* Tone:  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we do not use phrases like "this writer"
* Sources: Although a few sources were cited, every paragraph needs to be sourced, and the source needs to be a reliable source. With regards to that, using primary sources (documents) is strongly discouraged; it's fine to provide a link for a curious reader, but the norm here, for our verification policy, is newspapers and national magazines, and other mainstream news sources.  In particular, the Social Contract magazine article is far too close to being a self-published source to be cited for such a controversial matter, in my opinion.
* WP:BLP violations. It is expressly forbidden by policy to say something controversial or negative about a living person unless that information comes directly from a reliable source. 
* WP:NPOV - the writer clearly is not trying to present information in a neutral way.  A total rewrite is needed (probably with significant shortening) to achieve neutrality.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Stayman Affair and 1995-2008 Lobbying for Microsoft 

message: This section has a couple of problems, and I've so tagged it.
# The Chicago Tribune link is broken, so I can't verify what the quote actually says.
# The blockquote seemingly attributed to the Chicago Tribune is tagged twice: once with the broken link, once with a reference to http://mediamatters.org/items/200603020007, which doesn't say that either.  This is confusing and unclear.
# With the existing working reference, it appears that Abramoff recruited Reid who may or may not have recruited Dobson.  At no point is it alleged that Abramoff recruited Dobson directly.
So, we have unsourced BLP material.  Can if be fixed, or should it just be removed?  Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ralph Reed's and James Dobson's denials

message: I changed the section name, "Continuing investigations", to "Investigations", because I do not believe that there are any on-going investigations in October 2014. If I am wrong add a paragraph at the bottom of the section, but do not restore the word "Continuing" as that is bad Wikistyle practice, since it will age into falsehood eventually. Always use language most likely to remain correct over time. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing investigations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628021530/http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf to http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110205174149/http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/November22005.pdf to http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/November22005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013131836/http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/08/news/lobbyist.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/08/news/lobbyist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060318070231/http://www.vanityfair.com/pdf/pressroom/advance_Abramoff.pdf to http://www.vanityfair.com/pdf/pressroom/advance_Abramoff.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061018014803/http://www.salon.com:80/politics/war_room/index.html to http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927003000/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=13794&cat=3 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=13794&cat=3
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927002918/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=15147&cat=1 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=15147&cat=1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060125121559/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/abramoff-and-congressional-reform.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/abramoff-and-congressional-reform.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206184358/http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-11/government/abramoff/ to http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-11/government/abramoff/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060702095735/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000987.php to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000987.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/01/29/national/w092309S59.DTL&type=printable
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819193508/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com:80/archives/001269.php to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001269.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231023528/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060112-1312-ca-abramoff-doolittle.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060112-1312-ca-abramoff-doolittle.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005082112/http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=240 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=240
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822035942/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001043.php to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001043.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006110603/http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=2288 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=2288
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821235036/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060319-9999-1n19dolittle.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060319-9999-1n19dolittle.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The feature movie "Bagman" is about Abramoff's doings, including with DeLay and Indian casinos.   I think it should be mentioned in a short note. Kdammers (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bagman"