ABC has been a disappointment lately. It seems they may be connected to Air America Radio.
I, for one, have had enough.

Senior Ross:

Me thinks you committed a Rather large booboo, si. Me thinks when you are in a hole you stop digging, si.

I think thou doth protest too loudly. Representative Tom DeLay cried fowl when he was being investigated and proclaims his innocence. Representative Randy Cunningham proclaimed his innocence and said it was all partisian politics. Dan Rostinkowski was innocent until he went to prison. Nixon was innocent right up until he resigned from office. People should not be so quick to dismiss this story. All politicans proclaim they are innocent and the other party has a vendetta against them. The Republican party in Washington is corrupted by power and money. Don't be so quick to denounce this story. Time will tell if it is right. Corruption is a cancer in our government. It can't be ignored or it will certainly grow.

"Don't be so quick to denounce this story. Time will tell if it is right." -- jerry

Time will tell if it's right? My goodness, that's not something you should have to say about a news article.

The rest of your point was what? He's a Republican, so he must be guilty? Well, at least in scolding the GOP for claiming bias, you proved their point.

Mr. Ross,

The more that you spin, the more you validate Rush Limbaugh's theory of the "Drive-By Media".

Speaker Denny seems to love cash and power more then he loves his country.

What is Denny hiding? Let's talk 'turkey', Mr. Speaker...$200. at a time.

This is not surprising given the insistence of the so called main stream media to shout loudly (even if it is not true) about a Republican and speak ever so softly (if at all) if it’s a Democrat. Just compare this to how they are handling William Jefferson D-LA in which ALL the major networks didn’t even broadcast his party affiliation. ABC news is now on the same level as a worthless tabloid without the entertainment value.

Let me add my voice to those who believe that the use of anonymous sources, undefined terms (mix), implication/innuendo, and reckless disregard for on-the-record evidence, add up to a complete loss of credibility for Brian Ross and ABC.

If I were on the jury, I would find this an extreme case of libel.

Whenever Clinton or Gore were found to have accepted money from someone who was questionable or turned out to be corrupt that was enough for right wingers to shout that Clinton and Gore were corrupt, even if there was no evidence that Clinton or Gore did anything in return. I wonder how they'd react if a high-powered Democratic lobbyist who admitted to doing what Abramoff has done had given money to Clinton days before Clinton made a decision favorable to the lobbyist's client.

I have one question for the right wingers denouncing this story: Do you really believe that the FBI shouldn't look into a Congressman accepting money from a corrupt lobbyist and then writing a letter on behalf of that lobbyists clients days later. That doesn't necessarily mean he did anything wrong, but it seems to me that

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that unless you have been living in a cave for the past ten years, you have met Jack Abramoff, been fed or entertained in an establishment he owns, know someone who knows him, or gone to a political event he funded.

Case in point: I ate at a restaurant with a friend a couple of years ago, and I found out later that the place was owned by Abramoff. Does that make me guilty of political corruption?

The point is, Abramoff is everywhere. Just because someone knows him or even because they've gotten contributions from him doesn't mean they're politically corrupt. Of course, you can't tell that to ABC, or it would kill their ratings. Hastert has already agreed to return the contributions he received from the guy. Cunningham and DeLay never did that.

To pilsener:

Completely agree. Using anonymous sources as grounds for a "news" story is simply unethical. Bob Woodward is the only journalist who gets away with that, and he only gets away with it because he's done it so often that its just a foregone conclusion that he's using anonymous sources when he writes. This is going to kill Ross's credibility, and if it doesn't, it should.

"The more that you spin, the more you validate Rush Limbaugh's theory of the 'Drive-By Media'."

Rush formulated that theory while he hiding the illegal drugs he bought from maid in a toilet tank.

Ed, while I can appreciate your argument that Republicans and Democrats should be consistent in their criticism, the fact is that the DOJ said Hastert is not being investigated and ABC News said he is. If you see how wrong it would be to condemn Clinton in this manner, how do you not have the equivalent point of view regarding Hastert? Do you want truth or just that truth which helps the DNC?

The MSM does not care about the truth and it is obvious to all.

Fake but Accurate. The MSM motto.

Watching and listening to the right wing "dittoheads" collapse is music to my ears. "Hush Bimbo", Bill "Oh Really", and "Shun" Hannity have used lies, half truths, and misleading nonsense to brainwash a whole mass grasping for any straw they can cling to as their talking points are crushed to ZERO...their amount of truth is now ZERO

As I and others have said here before, it is very likely that both statements are true. DOJ is in the process of reviewing everything Abramoff told them and evaluating all their evidence. Anyone who knew Abramoff's reputation before the scandal would be surprised if Hastert's name didn't come up in the interviews. But it is also reasonable that DOJ would not consider someonen "under investigation" or even "part of the mix" until they have evaluated all the information they have, determined whether the alleged activities would be a crime, etc. I would be very disappointed in the FBI if they didn't look into the relationship between Hastert and Abramoff, but I would also be disappointed if they said someone was part of an investigation before the information they have warrants further investigation.

I thought it was appropriate that the appropriate authorities investigated when the Clinton administration was involved in something that seemed suspicious or had a relationship with somewhat who proved to be corrupt. The existence of smoke doesn't mean there's a fire, but you should look.

So I repeat: Do you believe that the FBI should not look into Hastert taking official acts that benefited a corrupt lobbyist days after said lobbyist hosted a fundraiser for him?

Ron,

Just curious. how many reports exonerating Clinton on Travelgate or Filegate or Whitewater did you have to see before you thought Republicans should let it go?

Ross, enough is enough ... you don't seem that dumb to carry on this charade .. either you support your 'STORY' or not ? I believe you've been had and why can't you just admit yr mistake? the MSM has been requesting Bush do the same for the last couple of years ! so what say you ?

"Do you believe that the FBI should not look into Hastert taking official acts that benefited a corrupt lobbyist days after said lobbyist hosted a fundraiser for him?"

It would depend on Hastert's position before the fundraiser. From what I hear, it was the same. If not, he should be investigated.

"Just curious. how many reports exonerating Clinton on Travelgate or Filegate or Whitewater did you have to see before you thought Republicans should let it go?" --ed

One. I was never a Clinton basher, nor am I a Bush basher.

I have a pretty good filter for the BS that comes from both parties, and this story is just full of it. You ever wonder why a Hastert-hater in the FBI would jeopardize an investigation that could bring down Hastert? Well, he wouldn't. That seems like a pretty big red flag to me.

Hmmm, Seems like this Leak was timed just about right to start discrediting Hastert just before he and the House Republicans Slam the Senate Immigration Bill. I wonder...