White House Abramoff Stonewall, Day 15
White House Abramoff Stonewall, Day 15
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was first asked about meetings between Jack Abramoff and White House staff on January 4. On January 5, McClellan said he would have a “thorough report†on staff level contacts “very soon.â€
Fifteen days later, the stonewalling continues:
Q: Going back to the Abramoff investigation, do you have an update for us on any records or phone calls or e-mails between staff members and Mr. Abramoff or photos of the President with him?
McClellan: No, as I laid out yesterday, we’re not going to engage in any sort of fishing expedition.
I know there’s some that want to play partisan politics and do so. This is a gentleman being held to account for the wrongdoing he was involved in He is someone who through himself and his clients contributed to both Democrats and Republicans and it was outrageous what he was involved in doing and he needs to be held to account and he is being held to account by the Dept of Justice.
Here is a specific question for an enterprising White House reporter: Did President Bush meet with Jack Abramoff in May 2001?
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video of the heated exchange between David Gregory and Scott McClellan on this topic from Wednesday.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
quote from Bush in the prev thread:
some one should clue scotty in
January 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pm“This is a gentleman being held to account for the wrongdoing he was involved in He is someone who through himself and his clients contributed to both Democrats and Republicans and it was outrageous”
Still lyin’ Scott. It’s legal for “his clients” to contribute to democrats. They were the ones he screwed.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:26 pmThis is a gentleman
Abramoff is not a gentleman. He is a crook.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pmThe question needs to be more specific.
Since the Couchatta tribal chairman has admitted he paid Abramoff $25K in May 2001 for a meeting with Bush and acknowledged that the meeting took place, please tell us about the meeting.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:31 pmSuch a whiny baby. Scottie’s professional credibility was ruined when it came out Libby and Rove had lied to him. He should have resigned long ago.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:31 pmIs anyone suprised? I’m not.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:36 pmBut he only contributed to one candidate for president, Scotty. And he charged money for meetings with the president.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:37 pmThey’re gonna be plenty sorry when pictures of the two of them yukking it up are leaked … the WH is furiously trying to round up every picture of the 2 of them together. They’re in hyper-damage-control mode now. I think there’s no way this can be squashed - some enterprising amateur photographer is going to get rich (hey, that’s free market enterprise at work!) In fact, this blog claims that the BBC has a photo of Abramoff and Bush together: http://www.canofun.com/. I’m not sure but I’m betting there are other pictures out there that are more conclusive.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:40 pmhttp://www.worldnewsstand.net/05/John_Kaminski/12.htm
January 19th, 2006 at 1:50 pmStill trying to keep the lies and “spin” going:
He is someone who through himself and his clients contributed to both Democrats and Republicans and it was outrageous.
No, what is outrageous is that Abramoff only gave to Republicans. Saying that he gave to Democrats is a lie, and repeating it won’t make it magically come true.
Too bad, so sad.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:10 pmJosh has text at TPM of a letter from Dem Senators (Reid, Schumer, Durbin, and Stabenow) asking him to come clean on Abramoff since Scotty is stonewalling.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pmNothing will be coming out of the WH… I’m sure they are trusting that nice republican appointed judges will not order them to release such private and personal information during this time of war.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:14 pmThis from LA Times Aug 07, 2005
A U.S. grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor and the inquiry ended soon after.
http://auctionhouse.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/7/12243/56304
Bush knows Jack, and has been trying to cover his ass, he just couldnt fire allthe prosecutors looking into his illegal activities.
Impeach the Chimperor
January 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmThere is at least one photo of Bush and Abramoff;
January 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmhttp://www.canofun.com/
January 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pmFrom the Wash Post blog re Howell.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/
You want to know why people are so upset at your incompetence? This is what Scott McClellan (SM) said today on the subject:
(SM): Like I said, people are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever. And remember, this is a gentleman who contributed, either through himself or through his clients, to both Democrats and Republicans. This was not –
(Q): Not many Democrats.
(SM): Oh, there’s significant amount, if you look at some of the media reports, that has been contributed by his clients to Democrats.
See that?!?!? You are now responsible for this lie.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:26 pmOff Topic:
Judd, why does your description for this website state:
The American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. With the blog, APAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies.
99% of the posts here continue to bash our President and are certainly in no way nonpartisan. I see very few actual ideas or new policies discussed in earnest. Isn’t that statement misleading? Don’t you think you should be honest and change it you what you really are about?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#16 Oh, but he qualified w/ “clients”. The appropriate follow up question is, “do you have any proof that Abramoff directed these donations?”
January 19th, 2006 at 2:29 pmNon-partisan refers to the fact that we aren’t affliated with a political party, not that we don’t have a point of view.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRandy - Our prez is a lunatic that’s why.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRandy,
January 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pmWhy are there chicks named “Randy”?
Judd,
Thanks.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pmDo we really want pictures of Bush “Jacking Off”?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmRandy — Progression can only be accomplished by understanding Good vs Evil.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmT.P. Offers the Evil side of the current Admin. Can you Provide some Good side of current Admin?
Where did that picture of Bush and Abramoff go?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmScott McLellan=No one left to lie to.
How this closeted Jeff Gannon stroker can sleep at night is beyond me.
-GSD
January 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmRandy, you answered your own question.
If you want the new ideas and policies stuff, go to the APAF site. This is Think Progress. You know, a place where trolls like you come to derail our discussion of current events.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
January 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pmI believe Bush has covered all 6 of the 6 degrees of seperation with “Abramamoff”. Including the indicted OMB croney. What’s his name? Safavian?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:39 pmCan we give McClellen the chair, too?
Scotty is so outrageous, ” he is someone who through himselfand his clients contributed to both democrats and repulicans”… now we know the tribes money isn’t theirs but really belong to those who direct them, or has scotty let slip that Abramoff had alot more money than we know of and he gave it to the indians so they could give it back as donations, Kinda like Delay.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:45 pmRandy is non-partisan. He’s not affiliated with the conservative movement or the Republican party any more than Bush is. Randy is just a sycophant bowing and scraping. Like Dennis Hopper’s character in Apocalypse Now.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:49 pmJudd has more class than any of us.
Me at least.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:50 pm#13 Wayne - A U.S. grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor and the inquiry ended soon after.
That’s right, and since Scottie insists that questions be very precise so as not to be “fishing”, how about this: “Scott, who made the decision to replace the federal prosecutor in Guam who was investigating Jack Abramoff, and why was the investigation dropped?”
Since it’s not an “ongoing investigation” anymore, he should be able to provide an answer.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pmHere are some more questions the White House press can ask:
“Who was responsible for hiring David Safavian for a position in the Office of Management and Budget, who recommended him and what criteria were used to evaluate his fitness for the position?”
If Scottie can’t answer that one due to Safavian still being under investigation, ask the same question about Patrick Pizzella being hired by the Dept. of Labor.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:09 pmDavid Gregory was only pretty good at going after Scotty. As far as I am concerned there is SO much evidence out there that Abramoff was in DEEP with BushCo that I don’t understand why the WH press doesn’t throw something specific at him- like how about Abramoff being on the transition team for the Department of the Interior or how Susan Ralston went from working for Jack straight to being Karl Rove’s right hand gal?
I am so over the press sucking up to these idiots.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pmhere is what I predict:
Bush will stonewall on Abramoff for the duration of his administration and then
pardon him.
with osama’s (convenient) new tape today, we may very well martial law by then anyway. it is a grave day for the US of A.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:32 pmI would like to see the press not show up for Scotties little lie in’s. That would be the day. Or when he entered the room and went to the podium they all just stood up and gave him their backs.. No questions, nada. Off point, please forgive, does any one else wonder about the timing of the Ben Lauden recent tape.? Bush co. has to keep the fear factor and distraction up for the masses. Also. Has any one ever checked out the Crawford ranch for permanent guests.? Ya know, like letting a friend that needs a place to stay for a long while. Hiding in plane site is always a possibility. I wonder…..Blessings
January 19th, 2006 at 9:02 pmThis is some Q&A at a small biz econ growth speech in Va (believe today), the end of bushies answer absolutely blows me away, considering……
Q Yes, good morning. I’m a CPA here in Loudoun County.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q (Inaudible) — and the IRS does not spend a lot of time auditing. The last administration turned the IRS into a customer service department. And here, the last three years, it’s been reorganized. There’s quite a few people that do not comply. I really think that the IRS needs to get out there and audit. I hope none of my clients are here. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a very unbelievably interesting statement from a — (laughter.) No, but you’ve got a good point. Look, here’s the point the man is saying. He’s right. There are too many honest people — first of all, there are people who feel like they don’t have to pay taxes, and that’s not fair to the millions of honest people who do. A tax system is — (applause.)
Look, I don’t know the inner workings of the IRS; I know there is strong enforcement. And with the millions of filings, I would suspect there’s programs in place that highlight irregularities, that then call up the audits. I don’t think you can ever audit everybody, nor would you subscribe for everybody being audited who files a return. But if there’s flagrant anomalies in reporting, I suspect they take a good look at it.
You’ll be pleased to hear that I’m audited every year. (Laughter.) One way or the other. More than happy to put out my income tax returns for my friends in the press to scrutinize. (Laughter.) I see them nodding — yes, they love — (laughter.) As it should be, by the way, for people in public office. Those of us in public office have the high responsibility to uphold the integrity of the process. And people ought to be held to high standards. In Washington, D.C. there needs to be high standards for conduct of public officials. (Applause.)
Full speech:
January 19th, 2006 at 11:48 pmThe Bush White House will try to stonewall forever on Abramoff! George will never admit knowing him, even though they were friends! So find the real pics fast, before they are collected and burned!
January 20th, 2006 at 2:54 am# 5 — Such a whiny baby. Scottie’s professional credibility was ruined when it came out Libby and Rove had lied to him. He should have resigned long ago.
But if everybody whose professional credibility is ruined resigned, then we wouldn’t have a President, a Vice President, a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Defense, an Attorney General, a Secretary for Homeland Security, a National Security Advisor, an Ambassador to the United Nations, a … — well, you get the picture. Scotty fits right into his milieu.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:23 ambecause jack abramoff is such a back-slapping, handshaking, winking and nodding type of guy with his republican friends, i’m sure someone out there has pics of abramoff and bush,and co. at one of those overpriced weenie roasts and might come forward.
January 21st, 2006 at 6:43 pm[…] If Abramoff is seeking one more payday, the White House is his enabler. TIME reports they appear to be official photos. If the White House would release the photos publicly, like it promised to do, they would be worthless. […]
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 pmDanica Patrick
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 17th, 2008 at 10:05 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 8:01 am