Bush administration cites ‘secrecy’ in Abramoff lawsuit.
Bush administration cites ‘secrecy’ in Abramoff lawsuit.
In a court filing submitted yesterday evening, Bush administration lawyers claimed “that the Secret Service has identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff’s trips to the White House.” The AP reports:
The Justice Department, citing a Cold War-era court ruling, 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. [...]
”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, a conservative watchdog group that filed the suit. ”We’ve alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
73 Responses to “Bush administration cites ‘secrecy’ in Abramoff lawsuit.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just as you think Bush cant steep any lower
December 1st, 2007 at 4:57 pmTensions high before Venezuela poll
Chavez threatens to cut off oil exports if US interferes with Sunday's referendum.
-----------
No British soldiers killed in hostile fire for 3 months next week
December 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pmWould you expect anything less? The only thing transparent about this administration are their motives.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pmOf course there's secrecy - they're covering up their crimes.
How hard-headed do they thing we are?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmAnd what exactly did convicted felon Jack Abramoff have to do with state secrets?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pmâ€This is an extraordinary development and it raises the specter..."
December 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pm- - Nah, nothin' will get Arlen's ire anymore.
Evidence that the emperor is involved in unbridled corruption would do damage to the State (Bush: "L Etat C'est Mois").
December 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pmTheir so pathetic that they would try to claim state secrets on their own public statements if someone tried to use it as evidence.
"But everyone already heard you say it!"
December 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm"Say what?"
"About the judicial appointment!"
"What judicial appointment? I'm afraid if there was anything that was relayed to the public, we would have to claim state's secrets on it because we don't want the ENEMY to get it. Al Queda might be able to use it to kill our babies!"
Another delaying tactic. In '09, the records will suddenly become safe for release. The Secret Service has pretty much trashed all pretense at being even-handed. They are now acting like another arm of the republican political machine. They'll have a lot to answer for, after the election.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pmI guess the Bush Administration has paid a heavy price for letting so many losers sit at the "cool table" during the neocon lunch hour. It shouldn't be such a surprise Abramoff is a crook--birds of a feather . . .
December 1st, 2007 at 5:37 pmNext thing you know, the address of the White House will be protected as sensitive information.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pmIt's like turning over rocks - all sorts of creepy, vile and corrupt things hide under them. This administration has lots of rocks yet to be turned over.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pmsooner or later(?) this will come across a judge who isn't corrupted...or basing his/her decisions along party lines..and when it does....it won't matter.....all the documents will have been shredded by then....I really loath the crap these lowlifes pull.....and i 'm not to pleased with the people who who pull the crap either......it'll only take...one honest person...to bring down the boosh house of cards.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:00 pm“On Friday, the Justice Department asked for a consolidation of the two cases [Besides Judicial Watch, CREW has also filed a similar suit.]. Such a move would take the CREW case from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth and give it to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, an appointee of the current president.â€
How convenient.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:00 pmJack Abramoff on the Left: It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently. - No wonder the GOP liked him so much! The almighty Commander Guy doesn't seem to know Jack Schitt, but I'll bet dollars to donuts he knows Jack Abramoff.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pmIt is all so nausea inducing.
I wonder what our major corporate news & cable pap stations are saying about it all? hmmm?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:09 pmI just fell out of my chair!
December 1st, 2007 at 6:11 pmRight wing Judicial Watch is finally litigating the Bush White House after 7 years of criminal behavior.
Who cares about Abramoff's visits to the WH.
What we REALLY want to know about is GANNON's visits to the WH.
And please, please, please, trolls, try and defend THOSE records as "Sensitive Security Records"...
December 1st, 2007 at 6:12 pmIsn't "key Republican lobbyist" Jack Abramoff sitting in prison as we speak? His immoral and illegal behavior on behalf of Republicans everywhere was do their hearts good. Can you imagine sitting in jail because of your allegience to this unprincipled Administration?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pmGood point, The Republic of Stupidity, Gannon's "tell all" book should be interesting--I wonder which of the Iraq Group staunch, family-vaules Republican(s) had (has?) the secret, forbidden sweet tooth for the occasional boy toy?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:16 pmSecrecy, my ass!
December 1st, 2007 at 6:18 pmWe, the American people and the rest of the world, have a right to know.
Impeach the bastards!
Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the do-nothing, know-noting congress clowns had better get off their butts.
It's again curious how the administration just knows there will never be a challenge to their adventures because they are able to TIE the court's hands by just breaking so many laws. And with the Dept of Justice in cahoots, ah, forget it. Law is forever broken by the powerful.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pmThe average joe, he doesn't have a simple defense.
Are we going the way of Russia?
like the old Cheech and Chong joke, "looks like dogshit...smells like dogshit...feels like dogshit...TASTES LIKE DOGSHIT...hmmm...guess it's dogshit!"
December 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pmGet your bibs on reptards...
Comment by theswan — December 1, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
No, mainland China!
December 1st, 2007 at 6:52 pmThugs.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pmGuaranteed, if a dem president pulled this same stunt, the right-wing would go bananas.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pmThis is no longer a democracy. The social contract between the government and its people has been broken. The democrats should be given a short period to depose the tyrant. If they fail to do so, then appropriate steps ought to be taken to return this government to the control of the people.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:40 pmComment by Billy Hill — December 1, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
MURDERER Bush is a COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA who needs to be waterboarded in Gitmo until he DROPS DEAD and joins his new
MASTER Satan...
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 1st, 2007 at 8:17 pm...highly sensitive documents that might contain information that will lead to Bush's arrest and prossecutuion!
December 1st, 2007 at 8:19 pmIf they're attempting to thwart the investigation, that's pretty convincing evidence that there were many, many more contacts between Bush and Abramoff beyond the one in which they both discovered they sired sets of twins, eh?
If Bush's is trying to "obstruct justice" citing national security, it must be pretty damning evidence.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:22 pmAs the president of Judicial Watch says: keep adding that fuel to the fire and soon it will become a pyre.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:25 pmSecrecy my ass. Wait till you're out of office you dirtbag.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pmthe address of the White House will be protected as sensitive information.
You mean
December 1st, 2007 at 8:49 pm1███ Pen████████ A██
Shhuush . . .
In this White House, the truth is not spoken, it is whispered and cloaked in Presidential privilege. The truth is not communicated in e-mails that can be traced . . . it is whispered between those that need to know. . . and cloaked.
Abramhoff is not a visitor . . . he is a ghost, about whom whispers float, but about whom no memory or trace exists.
Transparency . . . that's the name of the game.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pmYou mean
1███ Pen████████ A██
Comment by RUCerious — December 1, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Classic!
What's amazing is that, if Bush were to read it he'd manage to get "smoking gun" and "mushroom cloud" out of it.
Rudy would get 17 mentions of "9/11".
Mitt would contradict himself, two or three times.
The Huckster would proclaim it's the eleventh commandment.
And "The Darth Man" would read it as, "Kill 'em all and steal their sh!t"!
December 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pmWhat could a lobbyst possibly be involved in that could be considered...SECRET?....nope...this one don't pass the smell test.....and whoever said "if a Dem had done this.......the repukes would go BANANAS"...you got that right.....they'd be goin off like slobbering,drooling, hypocrites defecating all over themselves in a violent rage(kinda like the vote count in 2000 in Floriduh)..just to get their shot in.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pmBush is way out of control now. He signs an illegal agreement with the Maliki government, committing our troops.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:42 pmHe issued another signing statement this week, having laid low on them for a year.
Now he claims secrecy for Abramoff records.
Apparently there isn't anyone in Washington who will stop this power-mad cretin from continuing on this road to perdition. I don't care what happens to him, but I do care about this country and its citizens.
Republicans are criminals; Democrats are incompetents.
We are desperately in need of someone to take the reins of this government and bring it back into order.
#11 WtM,
December 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pmThat will be a "security measure" against the people storming the white house with torches and pitchforks, before carrying the occupants outside to be tarred and feathered before being imprisoned.
Democrats aren't going to take the measures necessary to stop this madness. Republicans are willing to ride it out and hope they survive.
#22, It appears so.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:47 pmQuestion.
Did Abramoff have adequate security clearance? If not, is there not a case of "violation of security procedures"? I could be wrong but, I don't think the Prez can grant clearance on his own.
Alternately, one could say that; if he had no clearance, his visits are not, by definition, "secret".
December 1st, 2007 at 9:51 pm#41. Good Question.
But here's a question: Isn't every single person that enters the White House screened? Isn't every person that visits the president documented?
Those records are not e-mails. Those records are standard in and out, secretarial logs.
This is truly not rocket science. Just get the logs . . . request under FOIA. If they are super-FOIA, why so? doesn't that violate the Presidential Records Act?
December 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pmThe argument that somehow Presidential Privilege should prevent disclosure doesn't fly. What the hell does Abramhoff have to do with national security? Allowing the scant chance that he does . . . why? That question in and of itself is not classified.
Fact is, Abramhoff is not due Presidential clearance. If he got it, we the people want to know why. If he didn't, what's the big deal? Document the lack of presence. [Probably can't do that due to the other folks visiting - just gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't it - butt . . . terrorists abound].
December 1st, 2007 at 10:06 pm'We would like to tell you what crooks we are....but...thats CLASSIFIED'.......OH BROTHER...
December 1st, 2007 at 10:09 pmWhat part of an Abramoff visit would be a national security issue?
No effing way.
Just more stalling, hoping the clock runs out before someone cuts off their tails with a carving knife...
December 1st, 2007 at 10:15 pmOh Brother. Orwillien your response was. Big Bro is watching you . . . but don't ask . . . State secret.
That line gets a little old as Bush spreads democracy, doesn't it?
Bush never exercised his "intellect" by reference to a dictionary. He just makes it up as he goes along.
Freelance facism at its finest.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pm"Democracy . . . or whatever you want to call it." GWB
December 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pmhe was a lobbyst...now he's an inmate...so why should this criminal get a pass?
December 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pmBefore all this stonewalling started I read somewhere that Jack Abramoff made 200 visits to the WH in a ten month period. There is an average of 22 working days per month, which means that Abramoff visited the WH every working day for ten months - he worked there.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pmSo it looks like Mukasey is keeping with the Gonzo strategy of obfuscation, cover-up, lies and deceit. Thanks a lot Sen. Feinstein.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:51 pmAbramoff was never in White House, never met the President. Who is this Abramoff guy anyway.
How can there be any security issue?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:32 pmAbram who? Doesnt't exist
"You doin drugs? . . . I suspect you're anti-American.
No really, Abramoff . . . ?
You got questions . . . state secret . . . you keep asking . . . . we got you. . . Hands on the car."
tsar secrets. Coming soon to a town near you (been here, done that)
This is how we like for OUR government to operate.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 amTsar seems to be the Bush response to non-violent resistence.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 am*Sigh*...I think that it's become patently obvious by this time (and if it's not, it damn well ought to be) that whenever anyone in the Bush administration cites "executive privilege", it's more often than not a euphemism for "pleading the Fifth".
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 amUh, there should NOT be any secrecy issues when it comes to dealing with a scumbag lobbyist. If there IS a secrecy issue, you did something bad.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 amIt would really be nice if Judicial Watch would mention their concerns about Bush's actions when they solicit funds from their "conservative" backers. I work in the Post Office and see their little letters all the time and the ONLY name that gets any attention on the envelope from Judicial Watch seems to be "Clinton". I guess Judicial Watch doesn't want to alienate their (conservative) supporters by pointing out all those that Judicial Watch feels are not "above the law". (The group uses the phrase "because no one is above the law" on ALL their mailings, yet NOT ONCE have I seen any RepubliCON names on those envelopes.)
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 amWell, Joseph, Judicial Watch hasn't had a hard-on since Clinton.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 amWell, well, well....
and think that we were treated to a deluge of deceptive statements by the White House that insisted Pres Bush didn't know Abramoff, had never met him and/or had contacts in any form, shape or way.
Turns out, not only were they lying, there is "highly sensitive documents" with detail of Abramoff's visits to the White House. I wonder how much corruption is detailed in these documents that makes them "highly sensitive".
/sarc on
I thought Abramoff was just a lobbyist gone bad. Silly me.
/sarc off
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 am>“On Friday, the Justice Department asked for a consolidation of the two >cases
Given this fact, taken in conjunction with what other posters have said about Judicial Watch, sounds like the Judical watch suit is a sham case to try and drag other cases down with it, via consolidation, or to make pro-secrecy precedent with slopppy apellate work
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:02 amNot surprised.
First, Jack Abramoff probably had a permanent White House pass. They have chosen not to disclose this.
Second, Glomar Explorer? That was a Nixon-sanctioned secret operation that went to court during the Ford Administration. Common link is Dick Cheney.
This court precedent ridiculousness has Cheney written all over it -- who else could cite a Ford-era ruling?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am"Sensitive Information?"
Like Abramoff was in bed with the South African apartheid government of the 1980's who paid for him to make a crappy film?
Like Abramoff was fundraising for night vision, sniper and other military equipment to send to Israel to arm the far right?
Both of those things would trigger "red flags" when Abramoff asked for admittance to the White House complex, yet both of those things are known and in the press.
Wouldn't it be nice to learn that St. Ronnie Reagan (who supported the South African apartheid regime) has some connection to young GOP'er Jack Abramoff, way back when.
It would to me.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 ambut Bush assured us that he "didnt even know the guy"
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 amI remember press reports from six years back about crewmembers of one of A's casino boats saying that Atta and the boys had partied on it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 amLeave George W. Bush alone! His corruption is NO ONES business except him and Jesus.
-GSD
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 amGrover at #62 has a winner -- Bush claimed he didn't even know the guy - then photos showed up everywhere - now he says he can't reveal anything because of sensitive security.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 amYeah, right.
All visitors must be logged in to the White House and checked off when they leave - Abramoff spent a helluva lot of time there. They can't deny it any more, so they just slam the door on it.
Wouldn’t it be nice to learn that St. Ronnie Reagan (who supported the South African apartheid regime) has some connection to young GOP’er Jack Abramoff, way back when. Comment by CitiDC
You mean like this?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 am
This has nothing to do with legal niceties. This is merely an attack on our constitutional system. The law will not work. It is time for the Congress to declare a state of emergency, arrest the president and top Republican figures for treason.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmHere is a picture of the LIAR, MURDERER and TRAITOR to the USA George W. Bush "never meeting" Jack Abramoff, courtesy of CREW:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30524
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm"It is time for the Congress to declare a state of emergency, arrest the president and top Republican figures for treason"
That seems to imply that only the top republicans are guilty. If that was the case, what you wish for would probably have already happened.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm“It is time for the Congress to declare a state of emergency, arrest the president and top Republican figures for treasonâ€
That seems to imply that only the top republicans are guilty. If that was the case, what you wish for would probably have already happened.
Comment by Rocker5150 — December 2, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Really? WHY would you say that?
If there were ANY Democrats involved with the Abramoff CRIMES, the GHP (Grand Hypocrisy Party) would have SHOUTED it.
Silence tells the story.
As do the LIES of WAR CRIMINAL and MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR who said he "never met Mr. Abramoff".
The picture (there are SEVERAL) show Bush to be a LIAR.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pmAristotle's Definition Of Tyranny & What BUSHCO Is Busily Constructing
....But the motherlode relates to Abramoff’s meetings with Karl Rove and Rove staffers, which likely number into the hundreds—and are matched by hundreds, if not thousands of emails and telephone conversations......
The trail of the Abramoff investigation led several times directly into the White House, but Bush Administration Justice Department investigators, headed by Public Integrity head, Noel Hillman, consistently refused to follow any leads. Hillman was rewarded for keeping things on the right track.
He’s now a federal judge.
One likely trail led straight to Alabama and the current controversy surrounding the politically motivated prosecution of former Governor Don E. Siegelman. Abramoff and his sidekick Michael Scanlon, a former assistant to current governor Bob Riley, were deeply involved in advising and
representing gambling interests in the Southeast. They turned their clients to support Riley in his campaign against Siegelman, and are linked to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars which flowed into the Riley campaign coffers. It seems likely that Rove knew of or perhaps even had some marginal involvement in these funding and campaign efforts, which sit firmly in the background of the efforts to remove Siegelman from the political process through a corrupt prosecution.
more at:
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 pmhttp://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001814
I'm not trying to tie anyone into the Abramoff scandal. What I am saying is that there are obviously top democrats that are keeping things from happening.
Some have claimed that there has been a deal made which placed impeachment 'off the table'. I've even heard the incredible charge that the deal included derailing court cases which would force the issue- probably the telecom immunity. GWU Professor Johnathan Turley apparently said the arrangement was well known in Washington.
Why would they agree to something like that? Future power promises? Bags of cash? Embarrassing photos? Threats? Whatever the reason, if such a deal occured they should all be removed from office and charged with obstruction of justice as well as anything else that has been going on behind the curtain.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pmThe more I think about this, the more the only possibilities are bad, worse, and worst:
If the only info is that Abramov took strolls through the rose garden, then Shrub is protecting the most trivial events as executive secrets whether or not they have any standing - an action which could easily be seen as obstruction of justice.
If the Abramov visits were "indeed" executive secrets, then Abramov was involved in discussions with Shrub on policy and legislation with the high probability that graft was somewhere in the picture - and- Shrub is using the law to hide his guilt.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 pmOne can only wonder how many people in the Bush administration those documents will condemn. Perhaps even Bush himself.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:20 pm