May 3, 2010 3:22 PM

White House Blocks Access To Visitor Logs

(AP)  The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of a major lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House complex are not subject to public disclosure.

The Bush administration did not reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall. The White House is using it to deal with a legal problem on a separate front — a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

In a federal appeals court filing three weeks ago, the administration's lawyers used the memo in a legal argument aimed at overturning the judge's ruling. The Washington Post is suing for access to the Secret Service logs.

The five-page document dated May 17 declares that all entry and exit data on White House visitors belongs to the White House as presidential records rather than to the Secret Service as agency records. Therefore, the agreement states, the material is not subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the past, Secret Service logs have revealed the comings and goings of various White House visitors, including Monica Lewinsky and Clinton campaign donor Denise Rich, the wife of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who received a pardon in the closing hours of the Clinton administration.

The memo last spring was signed by the White House and Secret Service the day after a Washington-based group asked a federal judge to impose sanctions on the Secret Service in a dispute over White House visitor logs for Jack Abramoff, a once-powerful but now disgraced lobbyist.

The chief counsel to another Washington-based group suing to get Secret Service logs calls the creation of the memo "a political maneuver couched as a legal one."

"It appears the White House is actually manufacturing evidence to further its own agenda," Anne Weismann, a Justice Department lawyer for 19 years and now chief counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Friday.

The White House and the Secret Service declined to comment.

Last year in the Abramoff scandal, the Bush administration, in response to three lawsuits, provided an incomplete picture of how many visits Abramoff and his lobbying team made to the White House.

The task of digging out Abramoff-White House links fell to a House of Representatives committee that collected the lobbyist's billing records and e-mails. The House report found 485 lobbying contacts with presidential aides over three years, including 10 with top Bush administration aide Karl Rove.

As part of its security function of protecting the White House complex, the Secret Service uses the log information to conduct background checks on people prior to daily appointments and visits.

The memorandum of understanding is an unusual step because it deals with an unsettled area of law.

Federal courts will ultimately decide whether records identifying White House visitors and who they are going to see are under the legal control of the Secret Service or are presidential records publicly releasable solely at the discretion of the White House.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
  • David Morgan

    David Morgan is a senior editor at CBSNews.com and cbssundaymorning.com.

Add a Comment See all 130 Comments
by long_rider January 8, 2007 8:44 PM EST
Our elected officials should move forward on this one.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010607D.shtml
Reply to this comment
by long_rider January 8, 2007 8:39 PM EST
Conflict of interest here?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807N.shtml
Reply to this comment
by long_rider January 8, 2007 8:36 PM EST
more info on the ways of the chimp and his goon squads:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807O.shtml
Reply to this comment
by long_rider January 8, 2007 8:30 PM EST
What Iraq is all about:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 8, 2007 8:21 PM EST
Your so called "god's word" makes me want to puke. It represents to me the unneeded deaths and persecution of millions upon millions of innocent human beings. It represents nothing more then a base excuse for hate and prejudice of the most deadly kind. It is a vile excuse for centuries of torture, conquest and programs. religion is the worst plague upon mankind. Worse then the black death.
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 8, 2007 8:17 PM EST
Using vulgar language is hateful and cruel, not sharing God's word. I never told you you had to believe in what I'm sharing. You on the other hand claim to "know" that you're right.

That's called humanism. That's what you've chosen to believe.
Posted by singinrick at 03:52 PM : Jan 08, 2007

Yet what you are saying is offensive. If you acknowledge or not, it is disgusting, nauseating and lies of the most sickening order. Much worse then any obscene word I could hurl at you. That's what you'll never understand. You lies, even if you don't know them to be such, are far worse to me then any filthy name I could ever call you. You make me want to puke by what you consider words of your faith. To me they are filth of the most disgusting kind. For you to quote a single word of scripture is to me worst then if I called you a a fuc*king child rapist. T me your "faith" is that sick.
Reply to this comment
by sy2502 January 8, 2007 7:35 PM EST
singinrick
every "holy book" of every religion, apparently, has prophecies that became true. More likey, they talk about stuff so vague that it can be adapted to any event we want.
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 8, 2007 5:59 PM EST
Quote, quote, quote. It's all you have. Time for me to go to bed. Safe, secure and knowing I am right and you are the one who is lost in mythology. Shame that my conviction does not included doing what I can to rescue you from your loss. I don't care about your "soul", because you have none.
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 8, 2007 5:56 PM EST
Sorry, I don't see how I'm ducking the point. I wouldn't ever dream of cursing you out, or deliberately insulting you. If I have, I am sorry, but I'm simply sharing my beliefs, the same thing you are doing, only I choose not to curse at you and call you every name in the book, because that is being hateful.
Posted by singinrick at 02:54 PM : Jan 08, 2007

The "sharing" you refer to (which I prefer to call preaching) is every bit as insulting to me as the most obscene word I have ever said to you. Every time you quote a scripture it's as much of a slap in my face as when I call you an as*shole. To me there is no difference.
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 8, 2007 5:54 PM EST
It's not a question of bible verses lying. There are many good books of philosophy that can guide people with wisdom. The bible is no difference. the bible is a rather weak book of philosophy, mixed in with many many myths.

Just because the bible has some OK advice to offer doesn't make it the word of a mythical god. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Reply to this comment
See all 130 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook