White House logs on Abramoff to go public

May 2, 2006

Way back on Jan. 4, Scott McClellan promised reporters a “thorough report” on Jack [tag]Abramoff[/tag]’s [tag]White House[/tag] contacts “very soon.” Shortly thereafter, [tag]McClellan[/tag] decided he didn’t want to talk about the issue anymore. At this point, the White House must be working quite diligently on McClellan’s “thorough report,” because no one’s heard a peep on the issue since.

Over the next week or so, we may learn quite a bit more about the White House’s relationship with the disgraced former GOP lobbyist.

Despite repeated White House objections to the release of documents related to Jack Abramoff’s visits to the White House, the Secret Service has agreed to produce all logs detailing the disgraced lobbyist’s meetings, according to a court filing released Monday.

The Secret Service agreed on April 25 to drop any objections to turning over the information and will “produce any and all documents” on or before May 10, according to the filing released by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 2. […]

The court filing, signed by Judge John Garrett Penn of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also stipulates the Secret Service will release the documents “without redactions or claims of exemptions” this month…. An official at the Justice Department, which is representing the Secret Service, confirmed to CNN that the Abramoff documents “will be turned over on or before May 10” without redaction.

Maybe there will be some blockbuster revelations; maybe not. To date, however, we know that the [tag]Bush[/tag] gang has been less than forthcoming on their Abramoff ties. At the height of the inquiries in January, a reporter asked if the White House would be willing to provide Congress or the public a list of Abramoff’s contacts with senior staff. McClellan wouldn’t answer the question. Asked when Abramoff attended staff-level meetings at the White House, McClellan said “early in the 2000 time period,” which is not only vague, but odd since Bush didn’t take office until 2001.

Who was in the staff-level meetings with Abramoff? McClellan wouldn’t say. What issues were discussed at the meetings Abramoff attended? McClellan wouldn’t say. Which clients were represented by Abramoff at his White House meetings? McClellan wouldn’t say. Did any of the president’s senior staff attend these meetings? McClellan wouldn’t say. Did Karl [tag]Rove[/tag] meet with Abramoff? McClellan wouldn’t say. At one point, McClellan went so far as to suggest the burden is on reporters to come up with specific information, not just specific questions.

After the Secret Service releases this information by May 10, we may have all kinds of specific information. If recent history is any guide, I expect the files to be issued on Friday, May 5, around 6:30pm.

I smell a rat. The *conservative* watchdog group, Judicial Watch, which filed 18 lawsuits against Bill Clinton, is demanding that the White House shine some light on its logs? The *Secret Service* raises no objection whatever? Hmmm, maybe Abramoff really has left the Bush Crime Family, and this is their way of getting back at him for violating the bond of omerta.

I wonder: why we haven’t seen all he White House logs on Jeff Gannon/Guckert’s visits to whomever?

  • “I expect the files to be issued on Friday, May 5, around 6:30pm.”

    Drip drip drip…. the unending negative news headlines continue for the Bush Administration.
    Tony Snow will need to become master of the dark art of toxic information management and yet maintain credibility.

    The Abramoff logs will be a good test of his powers.

  • Right off, I’m curious as to why the SS agrees to release the data on 25 April, and Judicial Watch probably won’t have it until what—almost two weeks later? Funny how information works; gobbledygook that’s “good” for tha administration is available immediately, while data that’s possibly “bad” for the administration takes time to find.

    Then, there’s the double standard in all of this. Kid George and his bootlicking hordes of intellectually-challenged fleas defend warrantless wiretappings with “only people who have something to hide would be against this program.” However—and we’re probably talking about “the mother of all howevers here”—it’s a whole different story when the administration and its cronies don’t want to provide open, above-board disclosures to the American public.

    Thus—and by the summary default of their own applicable, cherry-picked definition—the White House has something to hide….

  • My prediction on what these logs will reveal …..

    more contacts than was said/acknowledged before, but less than some hope.

  • Ed — Very good catch there. Knowing who is demanding the logs and their prior agenda casts this story in an entirely different light. Could this be a sign of a conservative attack on the WH? It does seem as though a lot of conservatives have said enough-is-enough and are joining in with the Democratic side to rid the country of this cancer.

  • If recent history is my guide; I’d say that these logs or whatever have been scrubbed. BushCo could continue to stonewall, but they reportedly are not. If they had big issues to hide, they wouldn’t be released…..We’ll see.

    • Comments are closed.