White House Caught In Lie About 2001 Abramoff Meeting

[kpete]

White House Caught In Lie About 2001 Abramoff Meeting
On May 9, 2001, Bush met with 21 state legislators, Abramoff, and several of his tribal clients (including the Coushattas and the Kickapoos). Abramoff charged his clients $25,000 for arranging the meeting.

In June, the AP reported that White House spokeswoman Erin Healy denied Abramoff’s attendance at the meeting:

The White House has no record of the Coushattas or Abramoff at the May 9, 2001, meeting, spokeswoman Erin Healy said. Records show representatives from the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana met with Bush, along with 21 state legislators, Healy said.

But TIME now has a photo from the May 9 meeting, in which “Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians.”

“Three attendees who spoke to TIME recall that Abramoff was present, and three of them say that’s where the picture of Bush, Abramoff and the former Kickapoo chairman was taken.”

more at:http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/23/white-house-abramoff-meeting-lie/

[chat_noir]

1. Bush, Abramoff and Lovelin Poncho (Coushatta tribal chairman) met

Lovelin Poncho, who is stepping down after 20 years as Coushatta tribal chairman, recalled meeting with Bush for about 15 minutes, his attorney said. An itinerary said the meeting was in the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White House. Poncho recalls Abramoff also attended, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition he not be named.

The White House has no record of the Coushattas or Abramoff at the May 9, 2001, meeting, spokeswoman Erin Healy said. Records show representatives from the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana met with Bush, along with 21 state legislators, Healy said.

Check the source of this information: :evilgrin:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/8/92307.shtml


The San Francisco Chronicle published the original article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/07/national/w142024D23.DTL


(edited to add SFC link)

[helderheid]

2. so all these news sources have these pictures - WHY aren't they publishing

them??

[onenote]

3. they don't have them

They've been shown them by a source who won't part with them (yet). My guess: the source is Abramoff himself, since I can't figure who else could possibly have these pictures.

onenote

[helderheid]

4. that makes sense. Thank you.

[EFerrari]

6. Or, who would benefit most from their publication. n/t

[BrainRants]

5. Gasp! White House caught in a lie?

How can that be?
:sarcasm:

(yawn...another one?)