White House Still Withholds Abramoff Docs

Admin. Claims Secret Service Records Of Lobbyists' Visits Cannot Be Revealed

(AP)  The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption," according to a court order.

But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that sometime in the past year the Secret Service identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to the White House.

The Justice Department declared that the contents of the "Sensitive Security Records" cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.

"The simple act of doing so ... would reveal sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function," the Justice Department argued.

Sensitive Security Records are created in the course of conducting more extensive background checks on certain visitors to the White House. In sworn statements accompanying the filing, two Secret Service officers said the extra attention is paid to some visitors because of the background, "the circumstances of the visits," or both.

The Justice Department said that releasing the information could allow people to figure out the protective activities of the Secret Service.

The filing came in a lawsuit by a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. Another private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also has requested Secret Service records of Abramoff's White House visits, and on Friday, the Justice Department asked that the two suits be consolidated.

To date, the government has turned over Secret Service records referring to seven White House visits by Abramoff - six of them in the early months of the Bush administration in 2001, and the seventh in early 2004, just before Abramoff came under criminal investigation.

The White House has released little information about the visits, but none of them appears to involve a small group meeting with President Bush.

"This is an extraordinary development and it raises the specter that there were additional contacts with President Bush or other high White House officials that have yet to be disclosed," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "We've alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire."

The White House had no immediate comment Saturday.

Nearly two years ago, just after Abramoff had pleaded guilty in the influence peddling scandal, Mr. Bush told reporters, "I can't say I didn't ever meet" Abramoff, "but I meet a lot of people."

"I don't know him," Mr. Bush said at the presidential news conference in January 2006. "I've never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy."

After the president's comments, Abramoff wrote an e-mail to the national editor of Washingtonian magazine saying that Mr. Bush had seen him "in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows."

Time magazine reported that its reporters had been shown five photographs of Mr. Bush and Abramoff. Most of them, the magazine said, had "the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions."

The Justice Department probe of Abramoff and his team of lobbyists has led to convictions of a dozen people, including former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, former White House official David Safavian and former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles.

Abramoff is serving six years in prison on a criminal case out of Florida. He has not yet been sentenced on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion stemming from the influence-peddling scandal in Washington.

[ianlou]

Infantile _Us,
Reading your posts are like picking at a scab%u2026
You know it%u2019s not healthy but you can%u2019t help it.

[ianlou]

You know, there is enough obstruction in what are clearly becoming criminal investigations to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this White house.

Posted by omega39 at 10:33 PM : Dec 02, 2007

Is Ken Starr Available?
Isn%u2019t he the poster child for impartiality?

[kansas1946]

The Justice Department declared that the contents of the "Sensitive Security Records" cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.

"The simple act of doing so ... would reveal sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function," the Justice Department argued.
*********************************

If the Bush administration or the justice department thinks anyone is buying this, then they are as crazy as Bush. To dump this sleeze lobbiest into some security envelope is just the height of desparation. This is a lying, corrupt, administration, is now, always was, and will forever be remembered as such. Republicans should be proud.

[infidel_us]

McCarthy was only a senator and look what happened to the GOP after only 4 years.
Posted by antoniof123 at 10:43 AM : Dec 03, 2007

Another good man slammed by the liberal media - even back then. History will reveal that McCarthy was right. Hell, Hillary clerked for a lawyer who was a card carrying member of the COMMUNIST PARTY. Birds of a feather.....

[infidel_us]

Good! When the Clintons release their white house docs.....when Kerry releases ALL of his military records.....when Sandy Burgler tells us all what docs will NEVER be returned to the national archives, then we''ll jump on Bush. Till then, ****!!!!

[antoniof123]

You know what is so funny these are just adds in the making for the Democrats in the next election. With 20 Republican senators up for re-election and 11 Battle ground states in it as well I wonder what the GOP is going to do. McCarthy was only a senator and look what happened to the GOP after only 4 years. Well, I can see why the Republicans are saying that only losing 4 seats in the senate is going to be considered a win.

Morons all of them they get what they deserve.

[b-easy63]

Even if 100 million people marched on the White House to voice their disagreement - no one would hear about it because the news orgs are in Cheney''''''''s pocket.


Posted by watcher269



Over a 100K DID march on WAshington on Sept. 15, 2007. It was carried by local news channels and a 2 sentence blurb on ABC I believe. The DC police did confirm that the estimate was over 70K, and quite possibly over 100K, other sources stated it was almost 125K. Didn''t hear about it? Several people were arrested at the die-in. They marched from the White HOuse to the steps of Congress, then lay down. If they climbed a barrier or did not get up when the police told them to--they were arrested. 9/15/07--at least 100K were brave enough to do more than type on the blogs. Remember that.

[b-easy63]

And All Recors are Kept Private for now..
Just Long Enough to Help the SHRUB Escape to Argentina. Where They are building the new Family Compound.....
Posted by rokero0666 at 09:55 AM : Dec 03, 2007

PARAGUAY. Not Argentina. He supposedly bought a huge ranch in Paraguay, that being the country that does not have any international extradition treaties. Argentina is where all the Nazis and German collaborators went after WWII.

[prinzowhales]

A criminal and murder suspect gets to go to the White House seven times...why are records of his visits "sensitive"? Curious...besides ripping off Indian tribes, this Zio-nazi had Mohammed Atta, the chief of the 9-11 patsies on one of his cruise ships just prior to 9-11...You''ll remember Mr. Atta...he was the fellow to whom the head of Pakistan''s ISI wired $100,000 just prior to 9-11...you know the good ISI general...the one who was breakfasting with Porter Goss and Senator Graham in Washington as the planes slammed into the WTC....Porter Goss would become head of the CIA...they''re the helpful fellows who ran the Saudi visa mill through which almost all of the 9-11 ''suspects'' entered the country and didn''t notify anyone that another one had entered the US...remember him?--he lived with an FBI informer...

[simonsez40]

Even if 100 million people marched on the White House to voice their disagreement - no one would hear about it because the news orgs are in Cheney''''s pocket.


Posted by watcher269


....and the fact that Bush has such a large and safety BUBBLE around him no protestor can get within 5 miles of that idiot!

[ppas2004]

First the Justice Department looses all credibility, now the Secret Service. And by the way, "The national debt _ the total accumulation of annual budget deficits _ is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.And now the president wants to talk about Congressional Spending? Plueez

[simonsez40]

Good, tactics like this worked for clinton.


Posted by Xlib

Clinton can''t even hold a candle to the corruption Bush has washed over the White House.

[omega39-2009]

Good, tactics like this worked for clinton.

Posted by Xlib

Engage unsubstantiated, unlinked Clinton whine. On my mark, three, two, one.....CLINTON DID IT!!!

[xlib]

Good, tactics like this worked for clinton.

[crater7]

THIS IS THE BEST REASON SO FAR, FOR NOT RELEASING INFORMATION BY THIS ADMINISTRATION;

"THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID THAT RELEASING THE INFORMATION COULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO FIGURE OUT THE PROTECTIVE ACTIVITES OF THE SECRET SERVICE".

I GUESS OUR S S IS NOT SMART ENOUGH, TO0000 MAYBE, MAKE A FEW LITTLE CHANGES TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.

STAY THE COURSE............

[watcher269-2009]

The baffling thing is 300 million people can do nothing about it, even the ones who want to.

Posted by lochlan

-----------

Even if 100 million people marched on the White House to voice their disagreement - no one would hear about it because the news orgs are in Cheney''s pocket.

[watcher269-2009]

So, when will Abramoff have a heart attack like Ken Lay did? I''d say it''s about time.

[brianbwb-2009]

"The Justice Department said that releasing the information could allow people to figure out the protective activities of the Secret Service."

Where and when was the law passed that we may not know the operations of our government officials? No accountability always becomes corruption, and this "state secrets" excuse is just more cover.

[lochlan-2009]

Nothing new from the criminal Bush Administration. The baffling thing is 300 million people can do nothing about it, even the ones who want to.

[omega39-2009]

You know, there is enough obstruction in what are clearly becoming criminal investigations to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this White house.