Abramoff, Bush ties become more clear

[Balta1701]

So, it's looking more and more like the idea that the President and the White House had almost no relation with disgraced Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff is simply another lie.

 

Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public Thursday that President Bush met him “almost a dozen” times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal.

 

“The guy saw me 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,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.

 

Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch....

 

The White House has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House.

 

Eisler said he had seen five photographs of Abramoff with Bush, none taken at Hanukkah parties.

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that the revelations did not prove Bush knew him well.

 

“I think as the president also indicated, he’s taken at least five photos with many people in this room at the annual holiday reception. And so I think you need to put this in context,” McClellan said.

Think Progress has been covering these emails and the attempts to cover up the photos of Bush and Abramoff for several days now. Mr. Eisler Made an appearance on CNN earlier tonight, and he left little room for doubt here.

 

    BLITZER: What about the president? What kind of relation did the President have with him?

 

    EISLER: Well, the President, as — had already been established that there there were at least six to ten pictures of Abramoff with the President. There’s a picture of Abramoff’s wife with Laura Bush. In one of the meetings, it was not at a Christmas or Hanukkah party as the White House keeps insisting, but in fact was taken in the Old Executive Office building where Jack had taken several of his clients up to shake hands with the President…

 

    BLITZER: So did you get the sense, based on your conversations, your e-mail with Jack Abramoff that if the resident saw Jack Abramoff, he’d know who he is?

 

    EISLER: He definitely knows who he is. Jack was a pioneer who raised a hundred thousand dollars for his campaign.

 

    BLITZER: A pioneer is a big-giver of the Republican party –

 

    EISLER: Every time the president would look at the list of the campaign contributors, Jack’s name was the first on the list because it starts with ‘AB.’ The second thing is that he discussed with Jack on numerous occasions the fact that Jack has twin daughters and so does the President have twin daughters and that was a point of commonality between the two of them.

We've known for a while that the company which owned some pictures of Bush and Abramoff suddenly had those pictures disappear as soon as Abramoff plead guilty, and we've known that the White House's promise to provide full details of all meetings between Mr. Bush and Mr. Abramoff (given in early January) has gone totally unfulfilled, to the point of Mr. McClellan denying he ever made that promise. Now we are seeing more evidence of a direct relationship between Mr. Bush and Mr. Abramoff leaking out over time, despite the best efforts of the White House.

 

The big remaining questions of course, are these; how much did the White House know, and why are they going to such great lengths to keep that information from coming out?

[Mplssoxfan]

One of the things I keep hearing and reading about in regard to the warrentless wiretapping is, "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldnt fear anything."

 

Two points: everyone has something to hide. It may not amount to much, but everyone has something to hide. Which, obviously, brings me to my second point. If the Bush Administration has nothing to hide, how come they're trying to hide everything?

[BigSqwert]

I dug up the old thread I started about this.

[Balta1701]

The first photo of Bush and Abramoff in the same room has been published. This photo does not come from any of the holiday parties which the White House was claiming were the only times Bush ever came into contact with Abramoff. Hence, it comes from a meeting they claimed never happened.

[EvilMonkey]

The first photo of Bush and Abramoff in the same room has been published.  This photo does not come from any of the holiday parties which the White House was claiming were the only times Bush ever came into contact with Abramoff.  Hence, it comes from a meeting they claimed never happened.

C'mon, I was that close to Clinton back in 1996. I was in DC for a friend's wedding, and his father was a big contributor, so the wedding party got the unofficial White House tour. While none of us got to meet him, I and the rest of theparty were at least that close while my buddy's dad went over to say hi. You think he remembers me? (If so, that would be scary!)

[bmags]

C'mon, I was that close to Clinton back in 1996.  I was in DC for a friend's wedding, and his father was a big contributor, so the wedding party got the unofficial White House tour.  While none of us got to meet him, I and the rest of theparty were at least that close while my buddy's dad went over to say hi.  You think he remembers me? (If so, that would be scary!)

 

This photo contradicts a lie. Hence it being published.

[Flash Tizzle]

The first photo of Bush and Abramoff in the same room has been published.  This photo does not come from any of the holiday parties which the White House was claiming were the only times Bush ever came into contact with Abramoff.  Hence, it comes from a meeting they claimed never happened.

 

Balta, you have to admit that photo is almost laughable. Those comments on Think Progress only prove how much some people want ANY connection between the two to surface.

 

I understand the point is not distinguishing whether or not they made contact (since the WH alledges encounters were only conducted during holiday events), but the damn drapes in the background are in better focus.

 

There's still no photographic evidence both met. If TIME magazine is going to circulate rumors and print photos, atleast print those which leave little doubt. Such as--I don't know--Bush and Abramoff shaking hands or coming within 10 feet of each other.

[Flash Tizzle]

This photo contradicts a lie. Hence it being published.

 

Sure, it contradicts a lie he never attended events aside from holiday gatherings. Still doesn't prove they met.

[whitesoxfan101]

Ha even a Bush hater like myself is going to need more evidence than THAT photo.

[kapkomet]

Sure, it contradicts a lie he never attended events aside from holiday gatherings. Still doesn't prove they met.

I'm sure they "met"... but who knows how much deeper it goes, unless you have a hard on to GET THAT MOTHER@#%^@$ Bush!!! If that's the case, not only did he meet, but he gave GWB every dime funneled through every illegal channel possible.

[bmags]

Sure, it contradicts a lie he never attended events aside from holiday gatherings. Still doesn't prove they met.

 

why would they lie about that then? why not say they've met at holiday gatherings, but have only been in attendance elsewhere?

[Flash Tizzle]

why would they lie about that then? why not say they've met at holiday gatherings, but have only been in attendance elsewhere?

 

Perhaps they couldn't be sure of every gathering Abramoff attended. It was known he attended holiday events, whereas other dates his presence couldn't be verified.

 

It's not the White House's obligation to prove they haven't crossed paths. Let those who are looking for any semblance of a connection collect their proof. If the evidence is located--and not just grainy photos rivaling Zapruda's film--then you have all the material to completely humiliate the administration (even more).

[bmags]

Perhaps they couldn't be sure of every gathering Abramoff attended. It was known he attended holiday events, whereas other dates his presence couldn't be verified.

 

It's not the White House's obligation to prove they haven't crossed paths. Let those who are looking for any semblance of a connection collect their proof. If the evidence is located--and not just grainy photos rivaling Zapruda's film--then you have all the material to completely humiliate the administration (even more).

 

if its not their obligation to disprove, then they shouldn't have made the announcement that they had only been to holiday parties together...

[Balta1701]

Perhaps they couldn't be sure of every gathering Abramoff attended. It was known he attended holiday events, whereas other dates his presence couldn't be verified.

 

It's not the White House's obligation to prove they haven't crossed paths. Let those who are looking for any semblance of a connection collect their proof. If the evidence is located--and not just grainy photos rivaling Zapruda's film--then you have all the material to completely humiliate the administration (even more).

So wait 1 second...you're actually telling me that the White House has no idea who is showing up at White House functions? Well, I guess when you let a male prostitute toss you softball questions in the White House press corps, anything's possible, but Jeez, if there aren't records of exactly who's showing up in close proximity to the most powerful man in the world, I'd be very very worried. They sure better know who the Hell is getting through security. Otherwise we ain't too damn secure.

 

Secondly, you're also forgetting that the White House told the press corps that they would provide a full and detailed accounting of all of the times the President met with Mr. Abramoff. They have refused to follow up on that promise.

 

My real question is this one...when the Enron thing broke, the White House was out in front saying "Yes, Ken Lay called for help, we said there was nothign we could do" and "Yes Ken Lay had a nickname but we didn't have a clue they were breaking the law." That is the exact opposite of their response this time. Why is this one so different?

[Flash Tizzle]

So wait 1 second...you're actually telling me that the White House has no idea who is showing up at White House functions?  Well, I guess when you let a male prostitute toss you softball questions in the White House press corps, anything's possible, but Jeez, if there aren't records of exactly who's showing up in close proximity to the most powerful man in the world, I'd be very very worried.  They sure better know who the Hell is getting through security.  Otherwise we ain't too damn secure.

 

You're assuming I'm familar with their policies. No, I don't believe they're aware of every person who enters the White House. As evident by the Gannon situation, extensive background checks aren't even conducted on hired employees--guests can't possibly be different. Abramoff might have been included a guest of a guest, or part of some other interest group which frequents the White House. This doesn't raise any new concerns of potential whackos gaining access to the president. Assuming anyone did have intentions to harm the president, you'd still have to pass through pat-downs and metal detectors.

 

Secondly, you're also forgetting that the White House told the press corps that they would provide a full and detailed accounting of all of the times the President met with Mr. Abramoff.  They have refused to follow up on that promise.

 

Maybe they're currently collecting this information. If I knew what they did with guests lists, assuming they hold onto such information, it would be easier to answer. But again, I'm not familiar with their policies--it could be such documents are destroyed. If so, I guess it's time to concentrate on the next impending GOP scandal.

 

My real question is this one...when the Enron thing broke, the White House was out in front saying "Yes, Ken Lay called for help, we said there was nothign we could do" and "Yes Ken Lay had a nickname but we didn't have a clue they were breaking the law."  That is the exact opposite of their response this time.  Why is this one so different?

 

Is it required they approach everything under the same protocol? Is there some rule which says, "If connected with individuals associated with financial troubles or illegal campaign finances, follow these steps..." The White House may have felt the need to immediately distance themselves from Enron because of the obvious s***storm brewing. Whereas Abramoff can't immediately be denied because their encounter, brief or not, may have happened.

 

Just think about this Balta-- Is the Bush administration orchestrating this grand lie; whereby destroying evidence and attempting to cover their tracks, or is it possible this is merely proof of poor management. Both are disturbing. If I'm chosing between criminal activity and ignorance, I'm reluctantly siding with ignorance. Comparing this event to 9/11, some people refuse to believe incompotence exists at the highest executive branch. They assume everyone knows everything, and nothing occurs without Bush's knowledge.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[Rex Kickass]

Except that picture is taken from George Bush's ranch, not the White House. And there were approximately 20 people at the event.

[Flash Tizzle]

Except that picture is taken from George Bush's ranch, not the White House.

 

From Balta's link:

 

[The picture] leaves unanswered questions about how Mr. Abramoff and the tribal leader, whom he was trying to sign as a client, gained access to a meeting with the president on the White House grounds that was ostensibly for a group of state legislators who were supporting Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cut plan.

[Rex Kickass]

You're right. It's the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. I read the article wrong - it said that Abramoff had previously claimed an invitation to Crawford. However the article did say there was no more than two dozen people there when that picture was taken.

[Balta1701]

You're right. It's the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. I read the article wrong - it said that Abramoff had previously claimed an invitation to Crawford. However the article did say there was no more than two dozen people there when that picture was taken.

He claims he was invited to Crawford but couldn't attend that one. Supposedly he also has some sort of invitation to prove it.

 

Also 1 more thing to note...this is supposedly just the tip of the iceberg in pictures. I pointed this one out, despite all of it's shortcomings, because it is the first direct evidence that the WH is covering something up in this case. Back a month ago or so, I was reluctant to say the WH was not fully disclosing everything because there was no evidence of it. Now we have multiple witnesses saying the WH isn't telling the truth, and we're starting to gradually see hard evidence. That's a new development.