"Abramoff contact records will be incomplete"

[Blue_In_AK]

I posted this in GD where it sank like a stone. Has anybody else heard anything about this?

I spotted this one-paragraph blurb in the Anchorage Daily News "In Brief" section this morning:

"The White House said Tuesday that the list the Secret Service has been ordered to release concerning convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's contacts with the Bush administration will be incomplete. Spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say what is wrong with the Secret Service list, why it is inaccurate or whether it includes records of far fewer meetings than took place."

This is really disturbing to me that they can just pick and choose what to turn over and what not to. Does anybody know anything more about this? When are these people going to be held to the same standards as the rest of us? If I ever get audited can I just say, "I'm not turning over some of my receipts, but trust me, I actually deserve these deductions"?

[Ian David]

1. How many of his visits coincide with Jeff Gannon's? n/t

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. FBI, GAO, SOMEONE needs to file for complete records. nt

[Ezlivin]

3. They also referred to it as an "historical record"

You know what that means since none of these guys believes in history.

[ClassWarrior]

4. They're going to think it's an hysterical record when they're behind bars.

NGU.

[BOSSHOG]

5. More contempt for the American People

by the party of honesty and integrity. Your example of the audit is right on the money. Just call it the bush precedent. The same applies for swearing in. If I'm ever asked to raise my right hand and swear to tell the truth I am going to deny it because the president, vice president and the attorney general don't have to. They are scum, supported by scum.

[flyarm]

6. no i hadn't seen that but we need to stay on top of this!! ON KO last

night he said how many visits..someone posted this on du...sorry i don't have the link..so whoever posted it thank you...

i do not want to take credit for someone elses post,.but this was posted here last night..

i'll see if i can find the link...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Abramoff: ten months, TWO HUNDRED WH visits! that's EVERY DAY
of a five day work week for ten months

every business day, as Olbermann and the reporter breaking the story say

EVERY DAY!

reporter: in the new days of accelerated WH access, this is "White House excess"

two hundred visits...how are they going to spin that?

every single work day

[flyarm]

8. ok here is link..its on greatest...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1086404

Gabi Hayes posted..thanks gabi!!

:hi: fly

[warrens]

7. This white house keeps meticulous records

You have to jump through 20 hoops to get in there at all. Those records exist. It's a coverup and a blatant one. They rely on this: By the time the press gets involved, something more pressing will arise and they'll drop it. It's called Whack-a-Mole.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. It really bothers me

that this was just one small paragraph in the back pages of the newspaper. Americans should be very, very worried by this administration's blatant and continual disregard for the rules and laws that the rest of us have to live by. This disturbs me almost as much as the 750 presidential overrides ("signing statements") of bills passed by Congress. If this isn't a dictatorship, what is? Do we honestly think that these people are going to go away quietly in 2008, and that they aren't going to "guarantee" that the Republicans continue to control Congress? I'm very worried.

[Warpy]

10. We know Secret Service records are incomplete

thanks to the FOIA request covering Guckert/Gannon's access. They showed sign ins without sign outs, and the reverse was true, too.

This gang is so arrogant they completely bypass the Secret Service when they feel like it, apparently hustling their favorites in or out of a service entrance when it suits them.

[appleannie1]

11. No Records Of Abramoff Attending when Photo taken

No Records Of Abramoff Attending Meeting He Was Pictured In, White House Did Not Know How Abramoff Got Into White House. "Mr. McClellan said that Mr. Abramoff's name had not appeared on the invitation list of the May 2001 meeting and that it was unclear how the lobbyist had entered the White House grounds. A spokesman for Mr. Abramoff had no comment on the photograph or on his contacts with Mr. Garza."

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/abramoff_line_o.php

The Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs showing when Abramoff met with administration officials - and with whom. But presidential spokesman Scott McClellan cautioned reporters from viewing the release as all-inclusive.

"I don't know exactly what they'll be providing, but they only have certain records and so I just wouldn't view it as a complete historical record," McClellan said.

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2006/05/02/ap2714162.html

Was he simply allowed to come and go whenever he chose without signing in. If so does that imply incompetence or does it imply they did not want a written record?