FACT CHECK: White House Falsely Claimed Abramoff Had ‘Very Few’ Meetings With Staff
FACT CHECK: White House Falsely Claimed Abramoff Had ‘Very Few’ Meetings With Staff
A House Government Reform Committee report establishes — based on e-mail messages and other records subpoenaed from criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s lobbying firm — that at least 485 contacts occurred between Abramoff’s lobbying team and White House officials between 2001 to 2004.
The Committee documents 13 instances of Abramoff personally meeting with White House staff. Abramoff billed his clients for 32.3 hours for time spent with White House staff.
Last January, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly misled the public as to the extent of the relationship between the White House and Abramoff, suggesting there had only been “a few staff-level meetings.”
QUESTION: How about the logs of the people, how many times he came into the White House?
MCCLELLAN: I’m checking into that. I said he’d check into that. I think someone asked that question the other day. I think it is very few times that he has been here in addition to any holiday receptions. [White House Press Briefing, 1/4/06]QUESTION: Do you have an update for us on the Abramoff visits to the White House beyond the three parties that he attended?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I indicated yesterday that I think there were a few staff-level meetings. But, no, I’m making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that. And I’ll get that to you, hopefully, very soon. [White House Press Briefing, 1/5/06]QUESTION: Can you be more specific about the contacts with the senior staff? You said you were going to get back to us on that.
MCCLELLAN: No, I did check. There were a few staff-level meetings. I think I previously indicated that he attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House. It is actually one two Hanukkah receptions that he attended. … My understanding from the check that we did was that there are just a few staff-level meetings in addition to those. [White House Press Briefing, 1/17/06]QUESTION: Why not — why are you guys resistant to open this here? What is there to hide, or why not just say, here are the contacts he had, here are the issues he talked about when he came to the White House, here are the people…
MCCLELLAN: Well, I did do a check, and I indicated to you exactly what I just told you. I indicated to you that there were a few staff-level meetings that he attended at least — he attended two holiday receptions, in 2001 and 2002. [White House Press Briefing, 1/23/06]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
33 Responses to “FACT CHECK: White House Falsely Claimed Abramoff Had ‘Very Few’ Meetings With Staff”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You mean a member of the WH Staff lied? NO! Not staff to the president of our wonderful free country! LIED to our FACES!
September 29th, 2006 at 11:11 amwow. what a shock. i’m so … sso.. zzzzz. ZZZZZZZZZz. tired. zzzz.
The MSM is already helping spin this for the CONservatives. They say that Abramoff and his co-worker would bill a client for bogus contact with WH staff. An example they gave is when a client was charged when someone from Abramoff’s company ’saw’ a WH staffer at a football game.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:11 amThe White House lies. Daily. Yet the kool aid drinkers continue to believe, to deny, or themselves lie.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:12 amOFF TOPIC? This weekend is the end of the fiscal year for the government.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:14 amSo? Facts are passe now………..you didn’t know?
September 29th, 2006 at 11:14 amA Bush administration official repeatedly misleading the public? Can’t be!
Meanwhile, it sounds like their party line on this is that Abramoff didn’t “get much” out of the meetings. So….it’s okay then you see.
(”As a direct result of lobbying by Abramoff and associates, the Northern Mariana Islands received special federal subsidies.)
September 29th, 2006 at 11:14 amNo shit. ThinkProgress is still refusing to discuss the gutting of Habeas Corpus.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:19 amTranslation: “You see, when you’re talking about the fallout from a disgraced lobbyist who pled guilty to three criminal felony counts who could bring down more Republicans, a few meetings can mean anywhere from 2 to 13.”
September 29th, 2006 at 11:19 amWow, the Pope is Catholic.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:20 amfew  /fyu/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fyoo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, pronoun–adjective
1. not many but more than one:
2. a small number or amount:
Few, the operative word for Little Scotty.
Actual visits, at least 485. Hmmmm……..Does that fit this definition?
We report……………you decide.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:25 amLiars lying to and about liars… wow!!!
September 29th, 2006 at 11:25 amI still want to see the Gannon records. Including the overnight stays.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:28 amPlease just start using the word lied. “Falsely claimed” is unnecessarily timid and simply less accurate. These are my employees we’re talking about, and if someone in my employ lies to me I damn well want to know about it. This is a disgusting administration, and a disgusting modern day Republican party. It’s time to stop being polite. It’s not our problem if being accurate in our criticism is devastating to them. What’s that old line… ‘if they keep lying about us, we’ll have to start telling the truth about them.”
September 29th, 2006 at 11:32 amOne’s to watch are the 82 visits with Rove. Spin it any way you want, 82 is more than a few.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:44 amfgf - I agree!! Why are so many people afraid to just say, “he lied”, “she lied”, “they lied”?! (cuz they’re lying all the freaking time!!)
We’ve been getting lied to so much it’s almost (almost) comical!
September 29th, 2006 at 11:54 amBefore the 2004 elections I saw yet another huge SUV in a parking lot and kind of snapped when I saw the BUSH ‘04 bumper sticker and put a note in their windshield that said simply, “How can you even THINK of voting for that liar?”
I knew it was probably hopeless,but it made me feel better,and I thought, hey you never know, maybe they’ll tell the story to their friends and inadvertently plant some seeds for the side of truth.
Meanwhile the lying has continued…..
September 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pmSo much for certain comments!
How about the combination of visitors to the White House? Have a thought, please! The lurking fossil of the reptile Kissinger especially at times of important votes. Add to that the roadrunner effects of Abramoff with his bullet proof fedora and raincoat. Bush is shown hissing, spitting and demanding compliance over at Congress, eyes all aglitter, later results of which were: A high-kicking chorus line of Frist Bush & Burns to “Victory of Tyranny”!
How was this accomplished? Do you think possiblly that since Abramoff had drawn most of Congress into the culture of corruption by bribes, that now each one who received that money, is now “beholden and/or obligated” to dance along with Bush et al. It seems they have been paid to dance, does it not?
September 29th, 2006 at 12:06 pmSo when the White Press Corps asks Tony Snow about this, do you think Snow will throw McClellan under the proverbial bus and admit that Scotty gave out bad information (possibly deliberately), or will he defend Scotty and claim he was doing “the best he could” or (more damning) “what he was told to”?
And I agree that we have to start calling the liars “liars”. The administration has almost never been simply wrong, they have lied. That should be obvious to anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:15 pm….au contraire….but we were only fooling about the number of visits….now watch this drive!
September 29th, 2006 at 12:16 pm485 meeting over a three year period… Hmmmmmmm
There are 1095 days in a three year period… if they met 485 times over 1095 days then they met on average every 2.25 days… put another way - they met 44% of the days from 2001 - 2004.
This is more than 3 meetings per week!!!
Who has this kind of access to the White House?
Imagine if this they would have met with our intelligence agencies this frequently prior to 9/11 or our military leaders this frequently prior to the lead up to the Iraq War.
This administrations priorities are not only disgraceful – but they are also criminal!!!
They should rot in jail!!!
September 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pmI devoted my blog about this topic.
http://comlogic.blogspot.com/
Of course we don’t know how many meetings Casino Jack and TurdBlossom Rove had outside the White House. I’m sure they had quite a few.
And then they each got a chance at sharing Susan Ralston.
Then Mad king Boy George claimed he didn’t know Jack. But he didn’t know Kenny Boy Lay either. Even though he flew on Kenny Boy’s corporate jet when he was campaigning.
But maybe there is some truth to he Doesn’t KNOW JACKS**T
September 29th, 2006 at 12:37 pmThe Bush Regime lies about everything else, so why not about Abramoff?
September 29th, 2006 at 1:26 pmBush and Cheney must be impeached, but the Congress is to wussy to do it, so we the people continue to suffer!
- 485 contacts between Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying team and White House officials from 2001 to 2004, including 82 with Mr. Rove’s office
- 10 direct contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Karl Rove
- Abramoff and Rove Had 82 contacts
i think you guys are misreading the amount of physical meetings these guys had. emails are not indicative of strong influence and a contact is not a visit.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:26 pm[…] Unfortunately, the commander and thief is too stupid to know when to resign. And his sheep will swallow his shit and follow. So on it goes.read more | digg story […]
September 29th, 2006 at 3:55 pmI AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SHIT!!! Someone please tell me what happened to our (failed) experiment in Democracy. I write letters to the editor, phone Senators & Congressmen, and zippo, nada, nothing. What the hell is it going to take??????? Now, as of today, the President can torture people and never be held accountable for past crimes. I’m probably next. My phone is probably bugged.
September 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmWTF.
Liar Liar Pants on Fire!
Don’t you love it when they’re caught red-handed!
September 29th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#25 wtf
September 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pmYour comments could have been written by me — exactly.
WTF!! Again.
Scott McLellan was speaking in tongues.
Very few meetings in the White House… The actual mansion. The white building.
Very many meetings in the White House complex… The Old Executive Office Building. The West Wing. The East Wing. All “parts of the White House” but not actually the White House.
You have to know how to read them.
September 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pmWhat’s the big deal? They were only off by 483! Any reasonable person would conclude it was an honest mistake, right Republicans?
September 29th, 2006 at 8:41 pmIt’s not the lie! It’s the cover-up! Rule of law! Rule of law!
September 29th, 2006 at 9:06 pmCorruption,hopefully it’s terminal to the carriers of this disease. Illegal laws are easy to reverse later by new governments. PINOCHET of Chile for example of war crimes,torture,etc. Karma can wait a long time,yes it can.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:14 pmWell, maybe Abramoff did have “very few” meetings with staff, compared with….um, Jeff Gannon. :P
September 30th, 2006 at 12:54 amThe Abramoff case is the biggest test of equality under the rule of law in the history of the U.S., and the greatest challenge to the professionalism of the U.S. Department of Justice in its history. It seems apparent that the corruption was widespread throughout the highest levels of congress, the administration, and the republican party. We’ll know the DOJ traded professionalism for politics if this thing ends with just 10 or so convictions when it is obvious that there are upwards of ten times as many definite law breakers.
I find one aspect of the administration’s spin rather interesting: The claim that since most Abramoff emails sent to white house staffers were not directly replied to, we should interpret this as an indication of Abramoff’s limited influence. It seems equally likely, in light of all the circumstances, that such emails could be considered as marching orders from Abramoff. The only fact that would show any real indication of limited influence would be for the email recipients to have bounced his emails.
September 30th, 2006 at 7:41 am