Biased Reporting and the Abramoff Scandal

From Breitbart: [Harry] Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show.

From MSNBC: Abramoff says Bush met, even joked, with him. No mention of Reid, however.

Drudge, incidentally, has both stories. Reid's denials look weak, not as an objective matter, but because it's pretty clear that it were a Republican in his position he would be shouting fire and brimstone. The Breitbart story basically shows that one numerous occasions, Reid voted favorably for a certain tribes represented by Abramoff (which is itself a non-story), but that by amazing coincidence he received substantial donations from these Abramoff clients shortly before or afterwards.

My only problem with the Abramoff scandal at this point is how lop-sided the attacks are. If what Republicans did was illegal (i.e. take donations from Abramoff's clients in exchange for votes), then Democrats are equally tainted. If the Republicans were within the law, so were the Democrats. I don't claim to know whether it was legal or not (both because I don't know the factual details, or what the criminal statutes say), only that everything I've seen makes this look like either a bipartisan scandal, or no scandal at all. Reid's (and Howard Dean's) efforts to pin it all on Republicans is patently disingenuous and dishonest.