WASHINGTON, Jan. 5, 2007
White House Blocks Access To Visitor Logs
Secret Service Records Made Off-Limits After Watchdog Review Of Lobbyist Meetings
-
-
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, seen here leaving Federal Court in Washington, Jan. 3, 2006, and his associates visited the White House more than 200 times. But the White House initially revealed only 2 such visits in response to a probe of the lobbyist's influence. (AP)
-
In response to legal efforts to uncover visits by lobbyists and other influential parties to the White House, watchdog groups have sought Secret Service visitor logs. It has now been revealed that the White House signed an agreement with the Secret Service last year blocking the release of such information. (CBS/AP)
-
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
-
Interactive Wheeling & Dealing Learn more about the scandals involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff
-
Interactive The White House Explore America's White House, which has survived a fire set by British troops and has undergone several major renovations in the past 200 years.
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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 132 Commentshttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010607D.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807N.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807O.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml
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 ****king child rapist. T me your "faith" is that sick.
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.
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.
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.
But anyhow...
You cursing at me is hateful and cruel. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Posted by singinrick at 02:13 PM : Jan 08, 2007
Again you duck the point.
Posted by singinrick at 07:35 PM : Jan 07, 2007
Was itt was sin and hate that led Christians to torture and murder Jews who refused to deny their faith during the Inquisition? Perhaps these "loving" Christians were missing during the invasion of England by the christian Normans when they murdered 10's of thousands of Saxons, with priests wetting their swords as enthusiastically as the regular soldiers. Where was this christian love during the Crusades when Christians slaughtered 100's of thousands of Muslims? Or maybe they were just "spreading the love around" when missionaries spread out around the world to preach the word of god to the savages, while condemning millions of them to death through disease and killing all who refused to convert. How many civilizations and pure cultures did they destroy during their forced missions? 100's of thousands is a very conservative estimate. And deny it or not, Hilter WAS a christian who murdered 6 million Jews because they were of a different faith and for no other ral reason. Your religion is responsibile for more hate, death, bigotry and outright slaughter then any other "faith" in the history of mankind.
As I said, we'll just leave it as I believe in God and you don't. You can keep slandering me as much as you'd like but it won't change the Truth in the end. I don't know how people go through life simply believing in nothing at all...but that's your choice, and your right. There is no god because one is not needed and in fact would be supurflious.
Posted by singinrick at 07:58 AM : Jan 08, 2007
I don't "have faith" that god does not exist, I know. I know it the same way I know gravity does exist or that the Earth revolves around the Sun, instead of the other way around that the Christian church murdered people for denying. I know there is no god because no god is or was needed to make what we have today.
posted by RandalDS
-Exactly my point! You're being hateful and I'm not!
Posted by singinrick at 07:55 AM : Jan 08, 2007
And you're intentionally missing my point that the preaching you and others do is every bit as offensive to me as the obscene words and insults I throw at you. Just because you don't define your preaching as hateful, doesn't mean I don't. I find preaching to be extremely insulting and disgusting lies. To me there is absolutely no difference between you quoting scripture to me and me calling you a ****king as*shole. To me the are both equally insulting.
Posted by singinrick at 08:13 AM : Jan 08, 2007
There is no devil to be afraid of. Doesn't exit anymore then Thor or Odin.
Thanks for the fairytale quotes.
This is just another example of the lack of morality and ethics among the Religious Right.
Should read "not even a faith in the non-existence of a god".
So the insults on us believers continue.
Oh and by the way, sin and hate lead to War, not God loving people who love one another.
Posted by singinrick at 07:35 PM : Jan 07, 2007
If you actually understood my comment you'd realize that you twisted my words around backwards in an attempt to prove your case. Not surprising though as the vast majority of preacher types like you are little more then snake oil salesman anyway. You're selling myths, so only lies will work.
No you didn't call me a lunatic here, I'm calling you one.
And again, no atheism is not a belief in anything, not even a belief in the non-existence of a god. However since you are unable to get your mind around such a concept you constantly try to look at it from a religious point of view, which is why you'll never understand it.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 132 Comments