THE MEMBERS / REFUSALS

The ones who said no

Pressler, Murtha, Hughes and the honest men hurt by the leaks.

RECORD / AT A GLANCE

DOCUMENTED

Access offered: Pressler, no; Murtha, he left the door open on tape. Provable wrongdoing: none charged against either. The Senate committee called Pressler clearly innocent.

THE EVENTS / THE CLAIM / THE RECORD

The chronology.

READ THE FILE

Evidence & assessment.

Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

5 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

DOCUMENTED The ones who said no

“Senator Pressler turned down the money.”

Pressler, a South Dakota Republican, refused on tape and the committee called him clearly innocent.

Who says it: Senate report; Myers district court.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

PARTLY TRUE The ones who said no

“Murtha refused the bribe.”

He refused the cash on tape but said he was “not interested… at this point” and talked about future deals; he was not charged.

Who says it: Murtha; the tape.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

UNPROVEN The ones who said no

“Murtha was guilty and got away with it.”

No court or ethics body found he committed a crime; the House ethics committee declined to charge him in 1981.

Who says it: Critics; later campaign opponents.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

All 97 rated claims ↗

OPEN THE RECORD

Sources & limits.

Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.

  1. Senate Report 97-682, The Pressler meeting and harm to innocent persons ↗

    Primary. Approval within an hour on November 7, 1979; the committee calls Pressler clearly innocent and injured by leaks.

  2. United States v. Myers, 527 F. Supp. 1206 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) — published district-court opinion ↗

    Contemporaneous trial-court opinion on constitutional challenges, published on Justia. Its description of refusals is not a finding that every aspect of every meeting was beyond ethical criticism.

  3. Senate Report 97-682, Part on selection of subjects and the “Republicans” requests (printed pp. 60–80) ↗

    Primary. Records the September 18 and October 9, 1979 recorded requests for Republican and non-Atlantic targets and the committee’s conclusion that no predicate existed for them.

  4. UPI Archives: Videotape shown in the Abscam trial (November 13, 1980) ↗

    Wire report of the Murtha tape as played to the jury.

  5. New York Times: Murtha Testifies on Money Offer From Thompson (November 21, 1980) ↗

    Contemporary trial report: Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator, testified for the government.

  6. United States v. Murphy, 715 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1983) — new-trial appeal ↗

    Published appellate opinion preserves the distinction between Murphy’s affirmed gratuity/conspiracy convictions and his acquittal on the bribery charge; cited here only for its discussion of Murtha declining the offer.

  7. CNSNews, 2006: Murtha’s Abscam past (ethics vote, Prettyman resignation, Bailey letter) ↗

    Right-leaning outlet writing during a 2006 leadership race; used only for attributed quotations (Prettyman, Bailey) and the July 1981 committee vote, which other accounts confirm.

  8. CNN transcript — ABSCAM footage and John Murtha discussion (November 15, 2006) ↗

    Later broadcast revisiting footage. Editorial excerpts are not a complete original recording or a complete court record.

  9. Senate Report 97-682, Recommendations (legislation, review committee, notice to injured innocents) ↗

    Primary. Recommendations were not all enacted; the AG guidelines remained the main control.

← The ABSCAM File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #Abscam shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #Abscam.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.