Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > April > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USJust for the record
An L.A. Times piece says Abramoff dropped Reed's name into negotiations with Sudan
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Los Angeles Times this week published an article that detailed conversations between Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Sudanese officials in 2001, during which Abramoff proposed to help the troubled African govermnent rebuff criticism by Christian evangelicals for human rights violations.
The talks allegedly took place in Abramoff’s skybox at Washington’s Fed-Ex field during a Redskin football game, and that the dollar figure for a contract is said to have ranged between $16 million and $18 million.
During negotiations, Abramoff reportedly “invoked his connections” to Ralph Reed, now a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia.
At the time, Reed would have been allied with Abramoff on anti-gambling campaigns in Louisiana and Texas, on behalf of the Coushatta tribe in Louisiana.
But the Sudanese contract never materialized, and there’s no evidence presented in the article that Reed had any involvement in the matter. “Under no circumstances would he have worked on behalf of the Sudan and he has never done so.” Reed spokeswoman Lisa Baron is quoted as saying.
The entire article can be read here, but it’s not likely to be a factor the Republican primary campaign.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Howard
April 6, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this
yeah, and when the abramoff scandal first came to light Ralph said he knew nothing about that too.
Given everything we have found out about Ralph I’d bet my house that he was part of the meeting asking how much he could make.
What a fraud.
By Debbie
April 7, 2006 06:35 AM | Link to this
Give the Ralph bashing a rest. We have been hearing for over a year that Ralph would be indicted any day. Guess what? That has not happened and it will not happen. Name dropping among lobbyists is done every day to entice new clients. That is a no brainer. Duh!
By Tater
April 7, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this
So why even report this if nothing came of it? It shows your Reed bashing tendencies and your liberal leanings. I think you would do anything to keep Reed from being elected.
Fortunately the voters will decide our primary, not the AJC. You do a discredit to journalism and give but another example of why mainstream people do not trust your paper.
By Debbie
April 7, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this
AMEN, Tater!!!!! This column/Blog DOES NOT treat all candidates equal.
By Tony
April 7, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Amen Debbie??? What a hypocrite. You use the AJC to supposedly prove your case then bash it. Typical kool aid drinking mentality. If you and Tater don’t like it, DON’T READ IT! All you fringe nuts do it complain about these things but you keep coming back reading it. I’m thinking you and Tater and the rest of the Reedies like hearing the sound of you own voices. You get on here and bash things and complain about it. Nothing’s stopping you from ignoring this “liberal” blog.
They report on the news. It’s a news story because it shows Abramoff and Reed were constantly working together on a range of issues. You cannot tell me that Reed was not aware of these shady operations Abramoff was pulling. They’ve been too close. They’ve done too many things together. THAT is what this election will be about. CREDIBILITY. Ralph plays the dumb friend and businessman ignorant of what Abramoff was doing to him but then wants GA to believe he is a smart, well-connected, plugged in businessman. Ralph can’t have it both ways. GA will have to decide “Who is the real Ralph Reed?”