Secrecy Invoked on Abramoff Lawsuits

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption," according to a court order.

But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that sometime in the past year the Secret Service identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to the White House.

The Justice Department 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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_abramoff_1

[Judi Lynn]

1. Outstanding! We all knew this was the case, back THEN. They were able to simply ignore it, and the

story went away, didn't it?

Very good to see it's back. Hope they can't duck this again, finally.

[God23]

7. Yes... But in a Friday Night News Dump.

Damn bush and his cronies. Everything to do with them is "secret."

[ixion]

2. sensitive, only insofar as they incriminate BushCo...

which is apparently synonymous with National Security these days. :grr: :puke:

[Botany]

3. On a Friday night filing ..... What are the chances?

But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that sometime in the past year the Secret Service identified
a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to
the White House.


a category of highly sensitive documents aka Jack Abramoff visiting the President, Rove, Cheney, and so on.

[Solly Mack]

4. "The Justice Department declared ..."

lolololol

[Botany]

5. Why do you hate America?

The D o J is trying to keep us safe from terrorists because if learn that
things that happened in the past by a man who is now in jail shows the
President was not honest about something than we will have to fight 'em
over here instead of fighting 'em over there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060126.html

Q What do you hear or your staff hear about releasing of photographs of Jack Abramoff with you, Mr. President? If you say you don't fear anything, tell us why you won't release them?

THE PRESIDENT: She's asking about a person who admitted to wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got to have confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government. You're asking about pictures -- I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well. I've had my picture taken with you -- (laughter) -- at holiday parties.

My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through and get their pictures taken. I'm also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation.

Q Do you know how many?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have any idea.

[Solly Mack]

6. I promise to punish myself

with wet noodle lashes and whipped cream splatters!

[hootinholler]

12. How exotic!

Can I help?

:evilgrin:

-Hoot

[Solly Mack]

14. Yes - but you'll have to deny any recollection of events afterwards

[hootinholler]

16. I'm sorry, did I say something?

;)

-Hoot

[DissedByBush]

24. "...confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That's a good one GW! I needed that laugh.

Ethics in your government -- you're killin' me!

So, when are you taking this act on the comedy club circuit? You could make a bundle, but probably not as much as your "ethics" have made you and your cronies.

[donkeyotay]

29. bush does 3 thing well: he accepts money, he cheerleads, and he LIES

but in a good way. Watch how he first distances himself from the subject at hand, infers that he would comment except he can't sully an "investigation" (being handled by his cronies), refers to the myth of an ethical government that he's dedicated himself to destroying, and then comes full circle now - having reframed the question from a straight one to a pretzel one - to DENY SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ASKED: having a picture taken with someone doesn't mean you know them very well. Finish will laughter. He's good at what he does.

THE PRESIDENT: She's asking about a person who admitted to wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got to have confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government. You're asking about pictures -- I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well. I've had my picture taken with you -- (laughter) -- at holiday parties

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Of course.

No reason to impeach here. Move along.

[lovuian]

9. We are a CLOSED society

it started when Cheney didn't give his records with the meeting of oil companies

[blm]

19. It started when Clinton chose to protect secrecy and privilege of Bush1 and

deep-sixed all the outstanding matters that were still being investigated when Bill took office - matters that needed a president willing to facilitate access to documents that Bush had stonewalled for years.

Instead of BushInc being fully exposed while they were at their weakest point by Dec 1992, they grew stronger in the nineties without any scrutiny.



http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Bush2, 9-11, and this Iraq war should never have happened.

[ladjf]

10. The "cover-up" never stops. (nt)

[cstanleytech]

11. But clinton did it to......

will probably be the whine from the far right.
I swear Bush seems with each passing day to be worse than Nixon.

[annabanana]

13. I guess Abramoff was writing foreign policy and stuff like that.

Who knew?

[rockybelt]

15. Highly secret

They really mean highly damaging.

[Joanne98]

17. The cover your ass sensitive security records.

[L. Coyote]

18. Time has five photographs of Bush and Abramoff. What are the dates on these?

The "Justice" Department. Would that be AG Mukasey? Who exactly?

.......

The filing came in a lawsuit by a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. Another private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also has requested Secret Service records of Abramoff's White House visits, and on Friday, the Justice Department asked that the two suits be consolidated.

To date, the government has turned over Secret Service records referring to seven White House visits by Abramoff ....

"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. "We've alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire."

...... Abramoff wrote an e-mail to the national editor of Washingtonian magazine saying that Bush had seen him "in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows."

Time magazine reported that its reporters had been shown five photographs of Bush and Abramoff. Most of them, the magazine said, had "the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions." ...........

[datadiva]

20. Nothing to see here, now move along like good little Germans n/t

[L. Coyote]

21. Well, this should settle the telecom immunity issue. Make them claim "state secrets"

Oh, I forgot, they already did that in that case too!!

Nonetheless, if this doesn't make more people see the light on why we should not grant immunity for these lawbreakers, I don't know what will.

Of course, I understand how felons peddling influence in the WH might be "sensitive," but it's no longer a damn "secret" !! :rofl:

[Zorra]

22. "identified a category of highly sensitive documents"...what utter bullshit.

Impeach them all.

[McCamy Taylor]

23. Dec. 31 2008, DC, WH paper shredding party to end all paper shredding parties.

:party:

They bonfire will be visible from NYC.

[Yavapai]

25. They will just have to burn Washington DC like the British did.

And his pardons will be done with mail merge. Anyone have a guesstimate on how many pardons will be issued. I bet it will be a looooong list.

[HuffleClaw]

26. the only thing 'sensitive' is their potential to embarrass the administration

this is really getting silly. every single time they are in a pickle, suddenly something is declared 'secret'. they really should know this can't last. and when it falls apart a HUUUUGE pile of incriminating information is going to see the light of day.

[cmd]

27. dot to dot to dot leads to election fixing

Ney (HAVA) to Abramoff to Blackwell and the votes in Ohio magically get changed. Follow the dots.

[Honeycombe8]

28. I hope the courts don't allow them to get away with this secrecy crap. nt

[indypaul]

30. Ditto

What possibly could be "secret" about a visitors register?
This is more B.S. and once again, Nancy, put impeachment
back on the table, or get the hell out of the way.

[donkeyotay]

31. The obstruction of justice administration. First they stonewalled,

now they claim a variant of national security. Highly sensitive. Hmmm. There's a highly sensitive country that we don't speak of. There's a highly sensitive agency that we don't speak of. Then, of course, there's the highly sensitive issue that bush could have been lying to the American people, AGAIN. Or maybe Larry Craig, Jeff Gannon and bush were having afternoon trysts together. I guess that would be "sensitive." I hate this bull that we don't have any right to know what's going on in our own government.

[Supersedeas]

32. what will be burned and shredded in January of 2009

[L. Coyote]

33. Scott Horton just weighted in with a knock-out to the tyrant

calling Bush a tyrant ant his government tyranny. from: GD http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2392986

==============
The Justice Department’s On-Going ‘State Secrets’ Charade
Scott Horton - Dec 2, 2007 - http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001814

When is information a “state secret” and thus completely exempt from disclosure in legal process, even if its exclusion will produce a manifest injustice? In previous episodes, we have gotten an array of different answers. For instance, we learned that when the Government engages in criminal violations of the FISA statute conspiring with telecommunications companies in the process, with the result that the communications of American citizens are subject to unlawful warrantless surveillance—this is a “state secret.” And likewise, when the Government picks up an innocent man, wrongfully confines him and deprives him of access to counsel and due process, then transports him overseas for the purposes of having him tortured—again a series of criminal acts—this is also a “state secret.” And today we get yet a further installment in what the Bush Justice Department considers to be a “state secret.” It appears that when a convicted felon at the heart of what Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann have labeled the “biggest corruption scandal in American history” pays hundreds of visits to the White House, meeting with the President, the Vice President, and the President’s senior political advisor, and potentially involving them directly or indirectly in his criminal schemes, this, too, is a “state secret” and thus cannot be divulged.

I think we’re detecting a pattern here. “State secrets” it seems has nothing to do with signals intelligence, military planning or armaments—the things traditionally associated with state secrets. No, when the Bush Justice Department uses the term, it means something else: it refers to information which, if disclosed, would be politically embarrassing to the Republican Party, and as to which no other privilege is available. The “state secrets” privilege has literally emerged as the Bush Administration’s new get-out-of-jail-free card.

The AP’s Pete Yost reports:

The Bush Administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Secrecy Invoked on Abramoff Lawsuits - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqNPqvQT05DQyiW1KlCS... )

.....

White House responses to inquiries up to this point have furnished specific evidence of intentional evasion–what in other circumstances (as for instance when it is enforcing rather than subverting the law) the Justice Department would call “obstruction of justice.” For instance, Vice President Cheney gave specific guidance to the Secret Service to destroy records of visits to his office and to stop the practice of recording future visits. President Bush made a number of statements refusing to give a specific account of his meetings with Abramoff, which reportedly have been frequent.

.... MUST READ ....