Posted on 05/01/2006 2:07:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs that will show how often convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff met with Bush administration officials — and with whom he met.
U.S. District Judge John Garrett Penn last Tuesday approved an agreement between the Secret Service and Judicial Watch, a public interest group, that requires the agency to produce records of Abramoff's visits from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.
Judicial Watch filed suit in February after the Secret Service failed to respond to its request under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Abramoff, who represented Indian tribes in their dealings with Washington politicians, once was one of the city's most successful lobbyists.
He pleaded guilty in January in Washington to federal charges stemming from an investigation into his ties with members of Congress and the Bush administration. He also pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Miami concerning a multimillion-dollar purchase of SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet in 2000.
Administration officials have refused to say how many times Abramoff, who raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's re-election, has been to the White House. Bush has said he doesn't know Abramoff.
Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch's director of investigations, said, "The documents will speak loud and clear on what Abramoff was doing in and out of the White House."
The visitor logs are to be delivered to Judicial Watch by May 10.
Bush's spokesman has said Abramoff attended "a few staff-level meetings" at the White House, as well as Hanukkah receptions in 2001 and 2002.
The president has said he does not know Abramoff personally. When a photo of Bush with Abramoff surfaced earlier this year, the president said he has his picture taken with "a lot of people." In the 2001 photo, Bush is shaking hands with a leader of an Indian tribe. Abramoff is in the background.
A few days after Bush made the remarks about the photo, Abramoff expressed surprise in e-mails to a magazine editor about the president's faulty memory. Abramoff told the Washingtonian magazine that he had met with Bush nearly a dozen times and that Bush knew him well enough to joke with him.
Three former business associates of Abramoff also told The Associated Press that Abramoff often mentioned White House adviser Karl Rove when talking about his influence inside the White House.
Abramoff was a $100,000 fundraiser for Bush and lobbying records obtained by the AP show his lobbying team logged nearly 200 meetings with the administration during its first 10 months in office on behalf of one of his clients, the Northern Mariana Islands.
The contacts between Abramoff's team and the administration included meetings with Attorney General John Ashcroft and policy advisers to Vice President Dick Cheney, the AP reported last year.
These undated file photos released by Columbia University show Washington Post reporters James V. Grimaldi, left, Susan Schmidt, center, and R. Jeffrey Smith, right, recipients of the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for 'their indefatigable probe of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff that exposed congressional corruption and produced reform efforts,' Columbia University announced, Monday, April 17, 2006, in New York. (AP Photo/Columbia University, HO)
I must have missed the announcement of Claudia Rossett's Pulitzer Prize for all of the work she has done to uncover the corruption in the Oil for Food program in Iraq, didn't I? /sarc
The Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs that will show how often convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff met with Bush administration officials — and with whom he met.U.S. District Judge John Garrett Penn last Tuesday approved an agreement between the Secret Service and Judicial Watch, a public interest group, that requires the agency to produce records of Abramoff's visits from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.
Someone needs to inform them that Bush administration officials didn't arrive at the White House before January 20th when Bush was sworn in.
If Abramoff was (still) visiting the White House in early January 2001, it was to meet with Clinton Administration officials. And if we are going to look at Abramoff's visits with Clinton administration officials, we should go to logs dating back to January 20th 1993.
For me, it's impossible.
I hear ya. That we can definitely agree on.
Nice of AP to lay a big fat leading headline out there as well.
John F-The-Army Kerry was seated closer to Hanoi Jane Fonda at a Vietnam War protest and yet the media denounced any attempts to link their protest efforts. (Note: Corbis prohibits the linking to FR of that Kerry-Fonda photo).
requires the agency to produce records of Abramoff's visits from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.
----
But ,, But then it wouldn't be a real leftist sanctioned witch hunt and could actually be taken seriously. ;-)
I wonder if they mentioned Karl Rove as often as I did during the 2004 campaign.
I find it interesting that Judicial watch has not asked to see the records with MInority leader Reid.. he got $67,000 dollars from Abramoff and at first denied it.
Abramoffs crime was ripping off the Indian tribes he was supposed to represent. He spent the indians money on a lot of politicans from both parties. But his crime was ripping the tribes off.
I know years ago I picked up the tab for a number of congressman. And the National Association of Broadcasters used to and may still pay for Federal Communications Commissioners to travel to Las Vegas to party. They also pay for Congressmen and Senators to come party in Vegas. And lots of broadcasters and broadcast companies give big bucks to candidates.
As Mark Twain said in 1880 .. we have the best congress money can buy. Or as LBJ said, "In America as opposed to Viet Nam, when you buy a politician he stays bought."
So what. Judicial Watch is a bunch of stone nuts. Does this mean to them that because Abramoff visited hundreds of officials that they are guilty of something. Hell, if that is the case then 3/4 of all citizens in the US must be guilty of a crime if anytime they might have come across or talked with a criminal. Where is this Country going? Guilty by association. If Judicial Watch has some concrete evidence of some wrong doing, then that is different. Fishing is just shit. And these stone nuts don't realize that perhaps President Bush may not have had any meaning full conversation with Abramoff and therefore he doesn't know who he is or don't remember him. President Bush as with thousands of political figures receive contributions from hundreds of thousands of citizens and still are not involved with them. I've run across thousands of public servants in my career, and I couldn't remember 99% of them. Even if I saw a picture of them. It's time Judicial Watch grew up.
I think the American people should know they name of every lobbyist who enters the building, and who they meet with, no matter who is president.
But Harry said they never actually put the checks/money in in his hands.. the donations were always put in one of his staff's hands. ;-)
Funny, how guilt by association works in the PC age, so one-sided.
Actually, it's more like sickening, to see a media and movement so bereft of any moral compass at all.
Why stop at Jan 1, 2001? Why not Jan 1, 1993?
I don't care about Judicial Watch, but I support their efforts to make the White House visitor logs a matter of public record.
I've got a law partner who is a former Congressman. He's always dropping names to make it sound like he's got influence. I thought it was pretty amusing then when I went to a political event for one of his good buddies, and the good buddy mispronounced his name.
I don't have a problem with this, esp. if it was something like a web site with all the names. It would help put things in context. For example, it might look damaging if Abramoff was there a dozen times, but not if there were hundreds who did the same thing.
The WH is relatively open, esp. to fund raisers, and it always has been. Too many people don't understand that.
Oh, Great, so you both support outing every pizza and pretzel deliverying intern/person to ever visit the WH including after hours. ;-)
I do appreciate the argument for making such logs public record after a reasonable amount of time.
The lopsidedness of this particular request speaks for itself.
Are you going to hold Congress to the same standard? (Hope so)
I'm all for the public log (with national security exception) if the same is applied across the board to Congress and all (non-classified) federal agencies and departments. Why do we not have just as much right to a record of all lobbyists who visit Teddy the Swimmer's staff, EPA twits, Cabinet officials, etc.?? The focus on the current WH alone is politically suspect - if people want to support a more open government let it be for all branches and agencies.
No. As it stands right now, anyone can visit their Congressional reps. or stop by a gov't agency office (like the SSA or IRS), and the only way to make logs like that affordable would be to restrict access.
WH access is somewhat more limited and controlled.
With the worldwideweb such logs are very easily affordable. The question is: why should Congresscritters and agency officials be shielded from the same kind of openness that is demanded of the WH?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.