Abramoff Fallout: NYT Asks "Who’s Next?"

NY Times editorial:

It is plain that Mr. Abramoff had unusual access. As for his effectiveness, Mr. Abramoff rated the results as “mixed.” But he scored some important victories. In 2002, for example, the administration made the unusual decision to release $16.3 million to a Mississippi tribe Mr. Abramoff represented, notwithstanding the Justice Department’s opposition to the project. The role campaign gifts and contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Mehlman may have played in this action is a matter warranting close scrutiny by prosecutors, and further digging by the committee.

As Tom Davis of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat, take pains to note, their report is based on documents that were provided under subpoena by Mr. Abramoff’s firm and,
for the most part, tell just one side of the story. The White House spin is that Mr. Abramoff had a well-known affinity for exaggerating the impact of his lobbying efforts. If so, full disclosure of relevant records by the White House could help support that claim. Meanwhile, the idea that Mr. Abramoff exerted no influence with the administration seems about as believable as Mark Foley’s early claim that his only interest in 16-year-old pages was “mentoring.”

LSB: How naïve would you have to be to believe the WH spin on this? Given their affinity for lying about nearly EVERYTHING – even when they don’t have to lie, – why in the world would anyone believe the WH on this? (Of course, in this case, they probably DO have to lie.)