PressCoverage

look at them desperately trying to plug the latest hole in their damaged vessel... comical, if not so sad... what was it Boy King told the cameras way back when the Abramoff scandal broke? ...

"i've never met the man... i don't know him."...

Bush administration cites ’secrecy’ in Abramoff lawsuit.

In a court filing submitted yesterday evening, Bush administration lawyers claimed “that the Secret Service has identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff’s trips to the White House.” The AP reports:

The Justice Department, citing a Cold War-era court ruling, 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. […]

”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, a conservative watchdog group that filed the suit. ”We’ve alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire.”

ABC ran their report on Sept. 28... amazing how quickly it became muzzled... unfortunately for Boy King, it can't be sunk...

PressCoverage

oh, and from the "it's not over" department... Bush League also playing the "secrecy game" regarding Fitzgerald's help for Waxman...

again i ask, why the secrecy? what's to hide? any Bush disciple here? a single one have an explanation for this?

WH blocking Fitzgerald cooperation in Plame probe.

House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) today wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and urged him to allow Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. From his letter:

As the recent disclosure from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan underscores, there remain many unanswered questions surrounding this incident and the involvement of the President, the Vice President, and other senior White House officials in the security breach and the White House response.

The Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been cooperating with the Committee’s investigation. Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee. […]

I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay.

PressCoverage

*shameless bump*

anyone willing to deny it, or suggest the secrecy is innocuous?

PressCoverage

noted...

we'll accept this, then, as unanimous capitulation to the fact that the Bush League is desperately holding onto "secrecy" in order to cover their collective asses for their known wrongdoings...

yeah, i guess i'd claim exec. priviledge to block this too...

PressCoverage

and there it is... sorry Bush League:

White House forced to release visitor records
December 17, 2007

A federal judge ruled Monday that the White House cannot continue hiding behind a shield of privilege over release of its visitor logs.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prominent religious conservatives.

The Bush administration has resisted public disclosure while it fights a lawsuit over alleged political influence by conservative Christian leaders.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth concluded the information was a public records request, subject to Freedom of Information Act disclosure of "agency records."

Stokes

Sorry PC, missed these posts before. I think what it is more than anything is their continued efforts to expand the power of the Presidency. They seem almost pathologically driven to not set any kind of precedent for information sharing or anything else that could be perceived to weaken the power of the office. Believe me though, I definitely don't see that as a good thing, I'm with you. Tough case to make in court though, where to draw the line for executive privelage. Its all pretty troubling stuff.

PressCoverage

c'mon.... that's sugarcoating... they're desperately protecting their corrupt asses...

pure and simple...

Stokes

No no, I didn't mean to try and sugarcoat anything, I believe both that they are covering their asses AND what I posted. I just think the idea of trying to change the balance of power between executive and legislative is worse than covering something up, which every administration unfortunately is guilty of to one degree or another.

Stokes

white out works much better NEM.