Abramoff at the White House.
By on May 10th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Abramoff at the White House.
Incomplete Secret Service records made public today claim Jack Abramoff visited the White House only twice in the last five years.
TPM Muckraker: “[T]hese records don’t account for any of the meetings the White House has publicly confirmed: Hannukah receptions in 2001 and 2002, as well as the infamous May 9, 2001, ‘$25,000 Meeting,’ of which we have a picture. In short, the records are a joke.”
Raw Story: Logs show Abramoff met with President Bush “the same day President Bush nominated one of Abramoff’s former colleagues to be Assistant Secretary of Labor.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
one phrase
“18 1/2 minute gap”
May 10th, 2006 at 6:28 pmthe White House has publicly confirmed: Hannukah receptions in 2001 and 2002, as well as the infamous May 9, 2001, ‘$25,000 Meeting,’ of which we have a picture
Was the White House honest about those events or were they lying when they said he was there. HMMMMMMMM
May 10th, 2006 at 6:30 pmHey, you gotta credit the White House for doing what they are good at.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pmThese records are less accurate than the weapons reports Saddam turned over and the administration ridiculed. These people are criminals, and not very good ones either.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pmShoddy record keeping by the white house to cover up an embarrassment, who’d a thunk it……..remind me about an intell situation where they could not keep their “facts” straight
May 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pmThe WH is obviously prefers a scrambled version of the truth to the truth. We the people, just can’t handle it.
Knowing that, the only question I have left for these clowns is when do you leave?
There are still a few that support them…how could that be?
Today on EWM: Bush Solidifies Base, Tongues wag as 32% of U.S. turns into pillars of salt.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:39 pmThe Secret Service also was sloppy in record keeping concerning Jeff Gannon’s comings and goings in the White House.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:40 pmThe Secret Service dropped the entire itinerary for GW’s trip today along side the trash can: contained not only names of all scheduled to go with him, but even what the line up of the motorcade would be – all the fine details that an assassin would want.
I am not surprised that the Sec. Serv. also has decided to dribble out a record here and there that amounts to nothing not already known. Cooperation by this White House is non-existent.
If The Secret Service will take a bullet for the president I think they’d muster the courage to fib a little to protect him too. After all, it’s their job.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:47 pmI knew it. F*cking liars.
Hey Jack A., they’re throwing you under the bus, and then setting the bus on fire! How about coughing up your personal calendars?
May 10th, 2006 at 6:47 pmTaking a bullet for the president is part of the job, lying to cover up some shady crap isn’t. Then again I have heard JFK used to sneak out for nookie, and the secret service would have known.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#8 Maybe, but the US Secret Service is in service to The United States of America, not the human occupying the Office of the President. They have their own reputation to protect, and covering up for Jack Abramoff is not in their best interests.
May 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThe SS which has quadrupled in size since Bush, who is afraid of his own shadow, was chosen to be our president knows which side of the bread the butter is on.
They are a direction extension of Roves office. When we get a new democrat president the ranks will be sliced by at least two thirds.
May 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThat whole Nixonian “here are the transcripts i have made of the taped conversations” obfuscation. The faked blue binder stack becomes a faux list. What i don’t understand is why anyone thought that it would be any different?
May 10th, 2006 at 7:13 pmKeep up the good work Bush. 69% of Americans expect nothing but untruths and dishonesty from you, your wife, your spokesman, your Vice President and anyone associated with your lousy, corrupt, stinking, sinking administration.
-GSD
May 10th, 2006 at 7:19 pmThere is no way this piss poor excuse for a United States Presidential Administration will ever tell the truth or do anything to jeopardize their position of corrupt power. A power they are using to steal this Country blind. There is only one solution: the 69% of us true Americans must throw the bastards out of office and into jail. Don’t tell me it can’t be done! Just help me do it! We all need to shout to everybody whether they will listen or not: DON’T TELL US IT CAN’T BE DONE! JUST HELP US DO IT! I will do what I can with what I have. Just click on Clyde and send me more Bush Bashings for the page. Maybe if we get it big enough somebody on the MSM fringes will pick it up and spread it further than I can.
DON’T TELL US IT CAN’T BE DONE! JUST HELP US DO IT!
May 10th, 2006 at 7:26 pmthe bush black-shirts get an a little taste in next weeks check…
May 10th, 2006 at 7:38 pmtake the ‘an’ out
May 10th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#2
May 10th, 2006 at 7:43 pmTundra,
That is so awesome. Yes, the meetings that were released before were mere fabrications. The real ones were only the two that are stated.
Funniest imitation of a troll ina long time.
Like I said before, judicial Watch is a right wing institution that is only interested in harrasing Democrat administrations. In other words, they aren’t to be trusted.
May 10th, 2006 at 7:53 pmThey were just watching Bush’s back on these “Bush Pioneer” Abramoff records.
Bush and Abramoff were good pals, but if we find out that Bush went to the poker games and used hookers with Brent Wilkes at the Watergate hotel, then Dubya Dunce Decider’s goose is done cooked > lol.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:17 pmI hope it does not take as long as to find out all the missdeads of Bush…The 18.5 missing minutes “None of the Archive’s attempts have been successful. The tapes are now preserved in a climate-controlled vault in case a future technological development allows for restoration of the missing audio.”
May 10th, 2006 at 8:17 pmEITHER
[1] Knowledge of the COMPLETE HISTORY of certain visits exists only INSIDE the MINDS of certain Secret Service Personnel; i.e., info was never placed in writing or once did but was scrubbed from the record;
OR
[2]There ARE complete written records of all visits inexistence at the W.H. SOMEWHERE ELSE but the the full record is not within the Secret Services’ control and thus any FOIA release by them will be incomplete.
IF Someone else in the WH keeps ANOTHER set of books, doing so is not as a matter of law criminal I believe, as the matter touches on neither the financial nor SEC issues.
So, it appears that Judicial Watch’s presumtion as to the locale of the repository of records is incorrect; as spokesman McClellan warned, the Secret Svc only keeps “certain” kinds of records.
The problem of obtaining complete disclosure of information under the FOIA would seem to be that
under scenario #1 a Court must agree to allow Judicial Watch to Subpoena personnel to testify as to information KNOWN but never recorded [or testimony that same was recorded but was then scrubbed out] and I do not believe that FOIA goes so far as to allow subpoenas for testimony; Scenario #2 would require that the court’s Order be re-drafted so as to be broad enough to encompass every single record of visits in existence within the WH regardless of the keeper of those records – and if [AS I SUSPECT] that information is kept within the offices of VP Cheney or the Pres, the “deliberative process” will assure that the info never reaches the light of day.
Thoughts by any other attorneys welcomed…
My Q for other lawyers is whether my take is correct that FOIA law is INSUFFICIENT to get around these scenarios: in the case of scenario #1, FOIA requests are not sufficiently coercive so as to allow citizen organizations to subpoena personnel to obtain information where such info is NOT in written form; and, in the case of scenario #2, information held by, say the V.P., may successfully be withheld under new SCOTUS precedent after the Energy Task Force case, so long as Cheney argues that same is part of info relating to his deliberative function; and only a Nixonian criminal investigation can now reach such info under SCOTUS precedent.
If I am correct that the White House has successfully stuck their collective finger in the eye of Judicial Watch, one is left with the Q of whether Mr. Fitzgerald has this information. If so my understanding is that we citizens will never learn the truth to rumors that there are upwards of 200 visits made over 10 months by Mr. Abramoff, unless indictments arise and the number of visits is considered by Fitz to be relevant to same.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:23 pmIf georgie really was doing and is doing all it appears he has done…
What is the obligation of the Secret Service?
I mean if TREASON were committed right under their noses it hardly seems like they would not be responsible for stopping it.
????
May 10th, 2006 at 8:38 pm#22
if i may, the foia section 5 usc 552(a)(4)(b) states:
if you assume a desire to not break the law, it is very doubtful that there are two sets of secret service records since that would be a violation of (3)(A)(B): Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
i can’t see an argument for executive privlege, as with the energy task force.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:58 pmso, it is now up to judicial watch to appeal the decision.
and, to answer a previous question, judicial watch may retreive their fees and litigation costs, if they win on appeal…
552 (a)(4)(E) states:
The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:03 pmwhat a joke – ‘ the fall of the roman empire’ should be required reading in schools here….i think this is the equivalent of the caligula years. good luck with getting ready for the new dark ages – gold at $704 today…
May 10th, 2006 at 9:29 pmon a more critical issue, the owner of the panties most sniffed by the neoconservatives, the vilest hole in america writes in her newest drivel:
Why hasn’t the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet?
May 10th, 2006 at 9:31 pmThank Goodness the WH has started to level with the people.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:50 pmBtw, JP, there can be only one JP with a Goddamned blog. And I’d like to think that, at the least, you would’ve blogrolled me, even if only in the interests of self-love.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:14 pmGaddam bold-faced hypocritical liars, these people in our holy Administration are. They do whatever they can get away with. Pathetic. They need to be double flushed in 2006 and 08.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:33 pmSHITCAN BUSHCO!
DON’T TELL US IT CAN’T BE DONE. JUST HELP US DO IT!
CLICK ON CLYDE AND ADD YOUR PART!
May 10th, 2006 at 10:58 pmWhy weren’t we surprised that the White House tampered their own records on those visitations by Jack Abramoff? Typical. Too many criminals in the White House. Watch Countdown at midnight. They talk about how Bush hired those convicted of wrongdoings in the Reagan and Bush Sr. eras were hired by the Chimperor.
Will this madness never end?
May 10th, 2006 at 11:10 pmWhy weren’t we surprised that the White House tampered their own records on those visitations by Jack Abramoff? Typical. Too many criminals in the White House. Watch Countdown at midnight. They talk about how Bush hired those convicted of wrongdoings in the Reagan and Bush Sr. eras were hired.
Will this madness never end?
May 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pmWasn’t this the same story with Gannon? Hard for them Demcradz to find a stain on yer clothes when ya swallow and dont keep good logs…
May 10th, 2006 at 11:18 pmWonder what desperate dirty tricks Rove has up his sleeve to try to win back the vast majority of Americans who have woken up to realize that Roverboy and our Republican leadership are a bunch of morons. BE VIGILANT.
http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html
May 10th, 2006 at 11:21 pmWhen Jack Hadn’t Met George…
The wait is over. The Secret Service has now released all records on Jack Abramoff’s visits to the White House. How many times did Abramoff knock at the White House door? Twice. The liberal bloggers are shocked and have now attempted to avoid all fact…
May 10th, 2006 at 11:22 pmBut I thought that the excuse for Abramoff’s many visits to the WH was that he was a member of the Interior Department’s ‘transition team’, when BushCo took over. Did I miss something? Update me, ‘O’ learned friends!!
May 11th, 2006 at 12:03 am“The wait is over. The Secret Service has now released all records on Jack Abramoff’s visits to the White House. Seixon the STUPIDONE”
Really? Because the INDIAN CHIEF pictures come from a DIFFERENT DAY? You actually believe this is ALL of the records? Wow, NORWAY must have given you brain freeze – then again, you’ve clearly established you are STUPID…
May 11th, 2006 at 12:04 amJeesh, and the Republicans went batshit over the missing Rose Law Firm documents.
-GSD
May 11th, 2006 at 12:14 amSexion given that the idiots in the white house already gave three other dates that Jack the crook was there that makes five they have admitted already, and that is five more than they have wanted to admit for the last year, kinda like political chinese torture for the repugs now days every day a new scandal…drip…drip…drip, and they have trouble lying and remembering all their lies,…drip..drip..drip.., so they keep letting things slip out or get revealed in grand juries,… drip…drip…drip…, or by their criminal coconspiritors who already got caught and turned as fast as they could on each other…drip…drip…drip, makes for interesting news days as well as falling poll #’s drip…drip…drip…drip…drip…drip…drip…it’ll never stop
May 11th, 2006 at 12:15 amClif,
Seixon is used to riding the ’short bus’, don’t expect him to recognize reality or exactly HOW STUPID he is. Poor thing is just too DUMB DU DUM DUMB to know exactly EMBARASSING it is to be him…
May 11th, 2006 at 12:26 ambut, it is somewhat charming in a sad way; similar to the feeling you get when you see someone mentally challenged, but, smiling nonetheless…so is it with those that still believe anyone associated with the black-shirts, even when there is photographic evidence; even when the black-shirts say ‘yes, he was here…’ they still have the uncanny knack to say, ‘i see no picture; you say “yes he was here”, and i agree, no, he was not here…whatever you say, black-shirts…i give up to you all logical thought, all rationality is in your hands, oh, great black-shirts’
so, rather than thinking of him as ’stupid’ better to think of him as one of those happy challenged people that are so ignorant as to be carefree…
May 11th, 2006 at 12:44 amIn other words one of the mentally challenged 31% backwash……..
May 11th, 2006 at 12:49 amjames,
It’s clear Seixon like MOST REPUBLICANS are ill equipped to live with others. Reality has a liberal bias, and Seixon like MOST REPUBLICANS refuse to live in reality.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:51 amhas a single democrat spoken today? are they also under the spell of dr mengele?
what did the democrats do in the past two days?
well, they had the kavanaugh hearings and feingold decided to leave after his first set of five-minutes worth of questions.
the kempthorne confirmation hearing did not have a single democrat ‘no’ vote…
john kerry gave a speech for over an hour about how the senate is doing nothing but giving speeches
hillary clinton sucked on a pair of shriveled australian testicles
bill clinton did nothing but make sure kids do not drink soda
al gore ate a sandwich
it is about time to ‘turn out the lights, the party’s over’
May 11th, 2006 at 1:03 amThe nation is being run into the ground by a Christian-Fascist rump that is dead set on bringing about their religous fantasies of Apocalypse to fruition.
Heckuva job.
-GSD
May 11th, 2006 at 1:20 amFrom the stroy link to in this thread:
San Diego Union Tribune
May 10, 2006
Secret Service logs show two Abramoff White House visits
SEIXON,
You sir are an idiot.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:37 amSeixon cannot admit the truth because he gets paid to post on TP by Karl Rove! I have no idea why he claims he lives in Norway, which is ridiculous, because Norwegians do not like Dubya Dunce Decider!
May 11th, 2006 at 2:02 amodd, this sounds remarkably similar to something else…any ideas?
May 11th, 2006 at 2:14 am
bush on iran…ehhh, i mean goering on versailles…sorry
Did you tell the people that the Versailles Treaty should be annulled by diplomatic means or by war?
Goering: This question is extremely difficult to answer. If I made a speech to my SA men in 1923 I could not very well say much about diplomacy. They would not have understood that. Rather the question was quite simply to be rid of Versailles. The ordinary SA man was not at all concerned with the “how” or the “what.” That is the task of the leadership. I did not say, “I promise that you will never have war”; or that we were only a purely pacific organization and that we should try by protests only to rid the world of Versailles. But neither did I say to them, “In the next few years we will march out and make war.” In reality I did not tell them anything. I said that they would have to be obedient and have confidence in the leadership, and leave what was to be done to the leadership — that that was proper, and a basic attitude — every SA man knew that from our speeches and from the Party program. Among all the people the wish was — of every decent German, I hope — to be rid of Versailles.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:52 amIf these reports are accurate (insert giggles), then they would have turned them over immediately. Of course you’ll hear the cries of “But Clinton!!!” with the Chinese lobbyist coming over to the WH 49 times. They love to live in the past.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:04 amBushCo = LIARS
May 11th, 2006 at 7:47 amI just have enough time to say that Bob Herbert’s got a new one out… and it ain’t gonna make the Dem’s happy.
Byeeee…
May 11th, 2006 at 7:51 amThis (fraudulent record keeping to obfuscate Bushiva’s Abramoff ties) is NOTHING!!!
The Democrat’s investigation into the conduct (legality or illegality of same) of the criminal Bushite junta’s lawyers who set up the White House justification for NSA domestic spying…
…has been summarily CLOSED!
Why?
…the investigators were denied the proper SECURITY CLEARANCES by the department responsible for issuing such clearances…
…effectively shutting down the Democrat’s investigators ability to gain access to the necessary records…
…Fu*k ALL of you “little” sh*t Americans who think you can bring down Bushiva and L’il Dick…
…You’re NOTHING!!!
…if you don’t like how our government is run, LEAVE!!!!
May 11th, 2006 at 9:02 amCome on folks, you didnt really expect the Secret Service, the agency responsible for the protection of the president, and an extension of the office of Karl Rove to tell the truth did you?
The SS is doing just what they are supposed to be doing. PROTECTING the president. If they have to lie to do it, they will. Thats it in a nutshell.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:15 amWow, I just figured out that none of you actually read my blog post. You’d be hitting yourself in the face if you did, guys and gals.
The Hanukkah meetings and the Garza meeting doesn’t show up on the Secret Service logs because (1) they are outside the scope of the FOIA request by Judicial Watch and (2) the Garza meeting took place at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building – not the White House.
So yes, the Secret Service records are “incomplete” because they are exactly what Judicial Watch asked for. The three meetings (Hanukkah and Garza) we already know about aren’t covered by the FOIA request, since it asks for policy meetings that Abramoff attended at the White House – not holiday receptions. Nor any meetings at any other places, such as the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
If you guys just spent the 2-3 minutes actually reading my blog post instead of huffing and puffing like a bunch of drunks, maybe you’d learn a thing or two. Then you might complain to Judicial Watch for filing such a narrow request, or appeal to other organizations to file FOIA requests that are broader in scope.
Oh, and the fact that Bush wasn’t even in Washington DC during Abramoff’s first logged visit seems to be avoided like the plague by places like Think Progress. Come on guys, it’s not hard to accept the truth.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:14 amSeixon,
Just a rule of thumb – we rarely read blogs by those we don’t take seriously. And you know that around here, that means you.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:43 am‘jane, you ignorant slut!’
nurse, oh, nurse, please read this to the gentleman from norway. and, please be gentle with the shock treatment today; he seems to be getting more and more deluded with each day:
May 11th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Hey this New Society of The bushcheney adminstration is beholden by OUR laws they are old and outdated the New Laws are this bushthe bastard can kill main steal destroy the Consitution and not a damn person can do a damn thing about it………Get used to it we have bush forever he is the new Dictator of the 21 century.His Poodle Putin finally has eyes to see ,ears to hear and the brains to put it all together…….
May 11th, 2006 at 11:52 amunbelievable,
You mean you don’t visit blogs that aren’t pre-approved by Think Progress because you don’t want to fracture your brainwashed minds with anything that might include the truth.
Why hasn’t Think Progress mentioned that Bush was in Chicago for Abramoff’s first logged visit? Ever ponder that? You all seem to be even more incurious than you claim Bush is.
Next time, instead of smearing and bashing me, try to read my blog post before proving your ignorance of the facts over and over. It doesn’t hurt to go outside the “house” every once in a while. Try it some time.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:05 pmSeixon,
Why the compuslion to turn something someone said into something they didn’t say so you can whine some more about it? Is it pathalogical?
I don’t run TP. How the Hell do I know what they do or why? We don’t have a Bible for Liberalism like you wingnuts do.
And, really, you need to grow a sense of humor. Might spare yourself that annurism for at least a decade or two. I was joking.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pmun………..
May 11th, 2006 at 1:40 pmSome of us don’t find your jokes funny.
Do like he says,and get out of the house some,Fatso.
Denny – GURU – E.Coli,
It’s just because you don’t get them. They are over your head. Like that swarm of flies mistaking you for a steaming pile of pig dung.
And unlike you, I’m at work.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmSexion…drip…drip…drip…NSA wiretapping recording every phone # of every call made IN the US…drip..drip..drip….but your in Norway so you do not really care who is in OUR government do you?
May 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pmfrom wikipedia, obviously:
now, what does tp not stating something have to do with any of the evidence against your silly statement?
May 11th, 2006 at 2:45 pmand, since you don’t get things the first, second, third, or even the fourth time you read them, i will try to make it simpler for you:
this is your classic maneuver. i don’t know how many dozens of times people have pointed this out to you, and you consistently miss the point…
your technique is misleading, false, phoney, and fraudulent. if you have an argument based on anything other than what was not said, but rather on what was said, you wouldn’t constantly get replies such as you have today…
of course, i don’t particualarly care what you do, but, i am writing this so that people reading it can more betterly identify your scheme and when they see it in you and other bush propagandists they will see it for what it is: a lie.
May 11th, 2006 at 3:10 pmunbelievable,
The thing is, you (and others) actually think that way. It wasn’t a joke. Which is the sad truth.
Clif,
Every phone number of every call made? Gee, that’s not exactly what the USA Today claimed, but hey, exaggerate away! Might as well say that the NSA is wiretapping the entire world! Why stop there? The NSA is wiretapping aliens too!
As for me living in Norway, the telephone companies are forced by law to keep records of all calls made, which the authorities can get a hold of when they need to. Keep pretending that Bush is some kind of rogue king if you like, but over in Europe and here in Norway, things are actually much worse when it comes to privacy.
risser,
Think Progress wrote that the records were incomplete. They were not, as I show. They were exactly what Judicial Watch asked for. They then repeat the Raw Story insinuation that Bush was in the White House when Abramoff was there, because he nominated an associate of Abramoff that same day.
Think Progress never states that Bush was in Chicago. Why? Can you answer me that single question? Why is Think Progress so interested in giving their viewers less facts rather than more? Isn’t that what we call propaganda – carefully constructing a message according to an agenda?
Answer the question: why did Think Progress never say that Bush was in Chicago?
May 11th, 2006 at 4:45 pmwell, i am not affiliated with think progress, but, if i may,
Bush was in Chicago.
feel better?
as for why they thought the story they DID tell is more significant than this mite of a fact, could best be explained by think progress. send them an e-mail.
as usual, you ignore the meat of the issue:
exactly what does the mention or lack of mention of your nazi’s whereabouts on a particular day on think progress have to do with the comments by your whitehouse in, say, post #59? as always, you do not counter an argument with a better one, or even a worse one; you decide that because think progress did not include a detail of a single visit, that the underlying arguments presented throughout today are somehow ‘tainted’ and because they are such, you need not respond rationally to them.
and, please, have the last word because you are truly annoying….
May 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pmThe thing is, you (and others) actually think that way. It wasn’t a joke. Which is the sad truth.
Comment by Seixon — May 11, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
So now you’re psychic and know what I’m thinking better than I do? Uh, no.
You’re overly sensitive and it’s very easy to push your buttons. Lighten up.
I was kidding.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pmP.S. Seixon, for proof of my joking tone with you initially, go read any of the forums where a gaggle of left extremists harrass me for refuting the architectural portion of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:13 pmSexion how do we know for fact this si not every phone #….
remember when it was just a few, terrorists connected calls…
and only ones that started and ended outside the US….
not the American citizens…
there has been too much blown smoke to believe anything they say now………anything
May 11th, 2006 at 10:09 pmThe National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
With the p[oipulation of the US 298,000,000 that would mean with an average family of 5, then there is approxmately 59,000,000 family units which have phone #’s to be recorded..which is in the range of tens of millions.
Sexion try reading AND understanding the stories….tens of millions is about all the private phone #’s
May 11th, 2006 at 10:43 pmBTW Sexion the actual number of PH#’s collected is in the Billions……it was tens of millions of people ….
The National Security Agency has been collecting domestic calling records from major telecommunications companies, sources told USA TODAY. Answers to some questions about the program, as described by those sources:
Q: Does the NSA’s domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?
A: In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones.
Q: Does that mean people listened to my conversations?
A: Eavesdropping is not part of this program.
Q: What was the NSA doing?
A: The NSA collected “call-detail” records. That’s telephone industry lingo for the numbers being dialed. Phone customers’ names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program. The agency, however, has the means to assemble that sort of information, if it so chooses.
Q: When did this start?
A: After the Sept. 11 attacks.
Q: Can I find out if my call records were collected?
A: No. The NSA’s work is secret, and the agency won’t publicly discuss its operations.
Q: Why did they do this?
A: The agency won’t say officially. But sources say it was a way to identify, and monitor, people suspected of terrorist activities.
Q: But I’m not calling terrorists. Why do they need my calls?
A: By cross-checking a vast database of phone calling records, NSA experts can try to pick out patterns that help identify people involved in terrorism.
Q: How is this different from the other NSA programs?
A: NSA programs have historically focused on international communications. In December, The New York Times disclosed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international phone calls to and from the USA. The call-collecting program is focused on domestic calls, those that originate and terminate within U.S. borders.
Q: Is this legal?
A: That will be a matter of debate. In the past, law enforcement officials had to obtain a court warrant before getting calling records. Telecommunications law assesses hefty fines on phone companies that violate customer privacy by divulging such records without warrants. But in discussing the eavesdropping program last December, Bush said he has the authority to order the NSA to get information without court warrants.
Q: Who has access to my records?
A: Unclear. The NSA routinely provides its analysis and other cryptological work to the Pentagon and other government agencies.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-qna_x.htm
May 12th, 2006 at 12:10 am