White House caught lying about Denver Three

March 2, 2007

Two years ago, asked why three law-abiding ticket holders were forcibly removed from a presidential event because of their bumper sticker, then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said a “volunteer” was responsible. A few weeks later, after McClellan had a chance to glean more information about the incident, he added, “Now, in terms of this issue, my understanding is a volunteer was concerned that these three individuals were coming to the event solely for the purpose of disrupting it.”

We now know for sure that the White House was lying.

White House staffers directed two men serving as bouncers at a 2005 Denver appearance by President Bush to eject three activists from the public event, the bouncers said under oath today.

It was the first time in the long-running controversy over the barring of the so-called “Denver Three” from the Bush event that specific White House officials have been named as having been involved in the ejection. …

According to attorneys for both sides in the lawsuit, the bouncers said that the two White House staffers directed one of the bouncers, Michael Casper, to please ask them to leave, referring to the three activists, and Casper did so.

Long-time readers may recall the story of the Denver Three. In March 2005, Denver residents Alex Young, Karen Bauer, and Leslie Weise obtained tickets from their Republican congressman to a public town hall meeting on the president’s Social Security plan. Someone working at the event noticed an anti-war bumper sticker (“No Blood For Oil”) on their car, which prompted staffers to forcibly remove the three from the presidential event, despite the fact that they hadn’t done anything wrong.

Even for a White House known for shielding the president from potential critics, this was bizarre. There are plenty of examples of people being excluded from presidential events for being Democrats. Others, because their shirts or lapel stickers were deemed ideologically unacceptable. But this was an example of American citizens getting escorted out of a public event, dealing with a public policy issue, on public property, featuring public officials, because someone didn’t like their bumper sticker.

And now we know for sure that the White House was directly responsible for this — and that White House officials lied about it.

For the Bush gang, this could get worse.

As the Denver Three’s lawsuit progresses, and as revelations like these come to public light, serious questions will get answers.

* Why were members of the White House staff responsible for removing law-abiding citizens from a public event?

* Who gave these White House staffers instructions about their official responsibilities that day?

* Does the White House have a formal policy that directs the president’s aides to evict law-abiding ticket-holders from public events? If so, who wrote it? Is viewpoint discrimination part of the policy or is this something White House staffers do on the fly?

“We found what we were looking for all along,” Martha Tierney, attorney for the Denver Three, said after the depositions. “And now our goal is to find out if this is a White house policy.”

The White House had no immediate comment on the testimony. I can’t imagine why not.

Ahhhh, the sweet smell of freedom. BushCo style!

  • Sadly based on this story I am afraid it looks like we wont find out about the myriad of atrocities committed by Adminstration and the 2002-2006 Republican Party Leadership until the dust settles on the Bush Presidency.

    By then the sting of these allegations will be gone and there will be no lesson learned by the media or the public at large.

  • Justice deferred is justice denied. That is the subtext of this administration. Where do we start anyway? Everywhere we look all we can see is corruption and discrimination.

  • Was any part of this presidential visit paid for with public funds? If so, any member of the taxpayers fotting that bill could move to bill the republicans for all of those monies.
    If the general public cannot attend, they should not have to pay.
    And don’t get me started on “First Ammendment Zones.”

  • Yeah, I like Dale’s point about “citizens”, NOT “activists”, unless, of course, asking for citizens’ rights in this country has become solely the provence of “activists”.

    Will this clusterfuck EVER be over?

  • Permanent ban required at No.8

    Done. (The comment that was No. 8 was deleted, which moved peter’s comment from 9 to 8, in case there was any confusion)

  • I guess putting the wrong bumpersticker on your car makes you an “activist”?

    Or maybe it makes you a terrorist.

    Oh wait, that’s the next election cycle.

  • Per #8

    Looks like CB is on the ball and responding quickly to stuff that doesn’t belong here.

    Unfortunately peter, that has left you requesting a permanent ban of yourself 😉

  • Wonder what kind of breeding would make a Tom Metzger wannabe, rant incoherently on a liberal blog and lose his turn at the meth pipe?

  • #5 Buzzmom: I believe the event was taxpayer funded as were most of “Bubbleboy’s” events (which was the cause of indignation in the first place). Perhaps the Rethugs should reimburse taxpayers for ALL of his “events.”

  • Yes, I’ve been proffering lately that our nation under Bush men has begun to reflect a Soviet type quality. I guess to those WH people, a one-party democracy is not an oxymoron. Sad, sad, sad! -Kevo

  • #5 Buzzmom:

    Here is a quick list with excerpts from some of the previous TCR posts on the topic:

    March 8, 2005

    The view must look nice from inside Bush’s bubble
    “Oh, just as a reminder, I thought I’d add that we’re paying for all of these events.”

    March 23, 2005

    Bubble Boy starts betting the wrong kind of attention
    “these ‘town hall’ gatherings are little more than glorified, taxpayer-financed informercials”

    March 24, 2005

    Looking for a way to challenge Bubble Boy’s tactics
    “a student at a public university had a ticket to see his president speak on public property on a matter of public importance. . . .someone — whether it was a university staffer or administration official is unclear — denied him entry because he was wearing a Democratic shirt”

    March 29, 2005

    Efforts to protect Bubble Boy go off the deep end – again
    “an example of American citizens getting escorted out of a public event, dealing with a public policy issue, on public property, featuring public officials, because someone didn’t like their bumper sticker”

    April 4, 2005

    Before you get your free ticket to see the president, a Republican has some questions for you
    “another ‘town hall’ meeting to discuss privatizing Social Security. As usual, tickets were distributed through a local Republican office. But in a move that may be less common, the GOP office quizzed would-be attendees before making the free tickets available. . . .Public event, public official, matter of public importance. The mind reels.”

    April 7, 2005

    Cost of Social Security Drive Cited
    ” The Bush administration’s ongoing Social Security blitz. . . .may be one of the most costly in memory, well into the millions of dollars, according to some rough, unofficial calculations. “

    April 7, 2005

    North Dakota Dems call for investigation into blacklisting
    “. . . .the presidential advance office in the East Wing. Those guys are, after all, the team that goes to these locations, sets up security, rehearses with pre-screened sycophants, and apparently helps distribute blacklists of suspected critics.”

    April 15, 2005

    Bubble Boy — with a twist
    “the White House finally acknowledge that Bush’s taxpayer-financed events are ‘invitation-only.'”

    June 14, 2005

    Struggling to explain Bubble Boy
    “taxpayers will pay for the president and his staff to host a scripted infomercial, but only those who already agree with everything Bush says will be eligible for a ticket”

    June 24, 2005

    Bubble Boy policies spark protest in Maryland
    “Bush was hosting a public event, at taxpayer expense, in a public school, but if you don’t embrace the president’s infallibility, you weren’t welcome”

    December 04, 2005

    Sunday Discussion Group
    “Public audiences are routinely pre-screened for ideologies, and then scripted and rehearsed before Bush ever steps foot near the event. Even when presidential gatherings are held on public property, and at public expense, Americans are consistently excluded if Bush advance-team members believe the ticket holders might be a Democrat.”

  • Dale #3: They were clearly active citizens, not the passive, what did Brittany shave today kind of citizens the Bush regime relies upon. Active citizens ask questions, sometimes really hard questions. These questions embolden our enemies by demonstrating Bush’s abject cluelessness.

  • I just went back an read the WoPo article on the Denver Three from April 23, 2005 written by Jim VandeHei. This part jumped out at me.

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the man who removed them was a GOP volunteer, but he refused to divulge his name or whether he works in Colorado or Washington. “If someone is coming to an event to disrupt it, they are going to be asked to leave,” McClellan said.

    The Secret Service knows the man’s name, one of the people familiar with the probe said, and has interviewed him. Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin refused to comment for this article.

    When the Secret Service interviewed this man did he inform them that he was under orders from the White House to toss out the Denver Three? Did he lie to the Secret Service? Did the Secret Service even ask? I smell a cover-up by the Secret Service.

  • Wonder what kind of breeding would make a Tom Metzger wannabe, rant incoherently on a liberal blog and lose his turn at the meth pipe?

    I wasn’t here for the banning of the original #8, though I have been doing my duty (as CB can testify) and am now an “ace” when it comes to shooting down Nazis (up to six now, I believe). I would however like to suggest to everyone that you not put these people into the standard liberal cliche about them, since it happens not to be true, and failing to understand their true nature is why they get away with things the way they do. I recommend you go over to Amazon and get hold of “Thinking Like A Terrorist: Insights of a Former FBI Undercover Agent”, written by my friend Mike German – who spent 12 years undercover in the white supremacist movement. Mike’s a friend (which is why I have a review copy) but the book is really important and I wouldn’t put my reputation on the line recommending it were it not as good as it is. Unfortunately, the FBI doesn’t want to hear about why they should be looking at our domestic terrorists as Al Qaeda’s most likely allies, rather than recent middle estern immigrants, which is why Mike is an ex FBI counterterrorism agent (our loss).

    • Comments are closed.