AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300333.html White House Calls Pictures Irrelevant to Ethics Inquiry By Jim VandeHei and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A04 Several White House officials have been briefed about pictures of President Bush and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff taken since 2001 but will not release them on grounds that they are not relevant to the ongoing money-for-favors investigation, aides said yesterday. "Trying to say there's more to it than the president taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. Bush, he said, does not recall meeting Abramoff and did not do any favors for the disgraced lobbyist. Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett speaks live from the White House, Monday, Jan. 23, 2006, to one of the morning television news shows. Bartlett responded to questions about photographs of President George W. Bush with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of a corruption scandal. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds) (Ron Edmonds - AP) Special Report Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty Jan. 3 to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. Abramoff, who recently pleaded guilty in the growing bribery and corruption scandal, was with Bush about a dozen times when pictures were taken by the official White House photographer or other participants over the past five years, according to a source familiar with Abramoff's legal situation. Abramoff, this source said, displayed at least five of them on his office desk and has told people the president talked about his children's names as well as personal details about their schooling during one encounter. The source said Abramoff has more than half a dozen photos with Bush, including one of the two men shaking hands, but has no intention of releasing them. The existence of the Bush-Abramoff photos was first reported by Washingtonian magazine, which reviewed five photos but was not permitted to publish them. No evidence has emerged thus far suggesting Bush had a close relationship with Abramoff or that he or any of his top White House aides did anything to improperly assist his clients, according to people familiar with the investigation. Several lower-level administration officials, however, have been caught up in the scandal, including the top procurement official. The federal probe is expected to zero in on Abramoff's dealing with the Interior Department as it unfolds in coming months. But public photographs could damage Bush's efforts to insulate himself from a scandal that has scorched numerous other Republicans. A vivid image of Bush shaking hands and smiling with Abramoff would provide fuel for news coverage and commentary, even if such "grip-and-grin" shots are commonplace for most politicians. Jennifer Palmieri, a former Clinton communications aide, said, "If TV is showing a picture of George Bush and Jack Abramoff, it immediately brings the poster boy for abuse into the Oval Office." The photos "change the dynamic to the extent that the White House lets it change the dynamics," said Mark Corallo, a veteran GOP communications official who is advising White House senior adviser Karl Rove in the CIA leak case. To minimize possible damage, Corallo said, the White House should release all of the photos immediately, explain how the photos are part of the normal meet-and-greet with supporters and show how Bush was a victim of Abramoff's schemes. Mary Matalin, an informal White House adviser, said the photos should not be released and that, if they are, voters are savvy enough to realize the images are not evidence of a Bush role in the scandal. A top White House aide said it would set a terrible precedent if the president were to release photos from private events. But Democrats said that precedent is established. In 1997, congressional and public pressure forced the Clinton White House to release videotapes of Bill Clinton hosting meet-and-greet coffees with big contributors. Abramoff was no stranger to the Bush White House. He had served as one of Bush's top fundraisers and assisted the Interior Department during the president's transition to power in 2000. The source familiar with Abramoff's situation said the lobbyist has not provided investigators any evidence the president was aware of any issues or interested in helping him. The source said most of the assistance to Abramoff came from Interior officials and elsewhere. Abramoff's lobbying team did discuss contacting an official in the White House office of intergovernmental affairs in 2002 when trying to get Congress to approve funds for a tribal school, e-mails obtained by The Washington Post show. But it is not clear if the official was helpful. Former chief procurement officer David H. Safavian was charged in September with lying to federal officials about his dealings with the lobbyist in connection with Abramoff's efforts to gain access to property administered by the General Services Administration. A second high-ranking administration official, former deputy Interior secretary J. Steven Griles, has also come under scrutiny in the probe. Griles, who was offered a job by Abramoff, has said he did not try to intercede on behalf of Abramoff's clients, but e-mails released by a Senate committee show numerous contacts between Griles and Abramoff or his associates. In May 2001, several of Abramoff's tribal clients joined state legislators at a White House event arranged by Grover Norquist, an anti-tax lobbyist and friend of Abramoff. In an interview, Norquist said he does not recall Abramoff being at the White House session. Several former Abramoff associates said the lobbyist boasted and apparently overstated his access to powerful politicians, including Bush. When Susan Ralston, Abramoff's former secretary, was hired by Rove, the lobbyist told associates he got her the job. Other officials said it was Ralph Reed, a former lobbyist who is running for governor in Georgia and has been tainted by the scandal, who helped her make the move. This is interesting. I do not know if anybody here watches the Daily Show, but a day or two ago they had most interesting clips - one was from Jan 5th where a White House spokesman was saying something like: "I will get back to you as soon as I can about "Staff-Level meetings" with Abramoff and President." And the other was more recent (Jan 17th I think) with him saying "We DO NOT discuss Staff-Level meetings." and "President does not know Abramoff and never heard of him." Also, can somebody please explain this to me: The existence of the Bush-Abramoff photos was first reported by Washingtonian magazine, which reviewed five photos but was not permitted to publish them. How can one not allow a magazine to print photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwpanic Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 it is starting to look like everyone in washington knows abramoff. only good can come from this sleaze bag being exposed. republicans and democrats need to clean up their act. it's time for a third(and 4th, 5th, 6th,etc.) party! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 it is starting to look like everyone in washington knows abramoff. only good can come from this sleaze bag being exposed. republicans and democrats need to clean up their act. it's time for a third(and 4th, 5th, 6th,etc.) party! Neither party is an angel, but STOP MAKING IT SOUND LIKE DEMOCRATS TOOK PERSONAL DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF repeat after me: ONLY REPUBLICANS TOOK PERSONAL DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties. That is true in the sense that Abramoff directed contributions to both parties. His personal donations were to Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Fine, but then lets stop talking about millions of dollars and dozens of politicians. Let's limit the scope to ONLY the few that received direct money and only the thousands he personally gave to them. Fair enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Neither party is an angel, but STOP MAKING IT SOUND LIKE DEMOCRATS TOOK PERSONAL DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF repeat after me: ONLY REPUBLICANS TOOK PERSONAL DONATIONS FROM ABRAMOFF Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties. That is true in the sense that Abramoff directed contributions to both parties. His personal donations were to Republicans. Oh how you would love to say that the Dems have no link to Abramoff, but you can't. Somehow you have concluded that clouding the issue in semantics is the next best thing. Please tell me how this distinction is going to help clean up dubious PACs. Sounds like more partisan howling to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Fine, but then lets stop talking about millions of dollars and dozens of politicians. Let's limit the scope to ONLY the few that received direct money and only the thousands he personally gave to them.Fair enough? No, not fair. Nobody is saying we need to limit scope. We need to do the following: 1) Investigate illegal activities, including those by Abramoff. 2) Pass laws to prevent this from happening in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Oh how you would love to say that the Dems have no link to Abramoff, but you can't. Somehow you have concluded that clouding the issue in semantics is the next best thing. Please tell me how this distinction is going to help clean up dubious PACs. Sounds like more partisan howling to me. Err? Semantics? Did Democracts accept Personal Donations from Abramoff? Answer: NO Did Republicans accept Personal Donations from Abramoff: Answer: YES Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Both parties have links to Abramoff, but only Republicans took personal donations from them. If you wanna fling poop - here we go: You sound like a Damage Control Puppet. Edit: hmm that was pretty weak... anywho, what I am trying to say is Republicans are in Damage Control mode. One of the things they did was saying that Democrats and Republicans are equally quilty as far as Abramoff goes. That lie has been exposed since then. I am sure both parties are guilty of corruption, but stop making it sound like Dems took private donations from Abramoff. Only Reps did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Abramoff shopped Bush photos, Newsweek reporter says Over the weekend, Time magazine and the Washingtonian both reported on five photos of President Bush with Jack Abramoff, but neither publication revealed its source. Yesterday, ThinkProgress laid out the case for why the source for the photos was likely Abramoff himself. Last night, our hunch was confirmed Appearing on MSNBC, Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that it was indeed Abramoff who floated the photographs to Washingtonian. ISIKOFF: As a general rule, if you’re the president … you don’t like pictures out there of you with convicted felons. It sounds like … there’s at least one picture of him with at least one convicted felon and another indicted, so it’s probably not a picture the White House is eager to have out there. The other interesting aspect of this is, while the White House hasn’t put these out, Jack Abramoff has clearly shown them to people. I don’t know anything about Time sources, but I do know that he showed them to Washingtonian magazine, which suggests he may be playing a little bit of a game here. He has, of course, pled guilty already to the Justice Department. But it does raise a question in my mind at least as to whether Abramoff is maybe sort of sending some sort of signal out here: “Hey, I’ve got this stuff.” Maybe he wants something from somebody at the White House, or he wants someone at the White House not to do something, and just sort of subtly playing with people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The real joke is Congress is going to clean itself up, they are all a bunch of whores every last politician in DC. Get use to it nothing is going to change just business as usual on our dime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Edit: hmm that was pretty weak... anywho, what I am trying to say is Republicans are in Damage Control mode. One of the things they did was saying that Democrats and Republicans are equally quilty as far as Abramoff goes. That lie has been exposed since then. I am sure both parties are guilty of corruption, but stop making it sound like Dems took private donations from Abramoff. Only Reps did that. Yes, Abramoff only gave personal money to republicans. Now can we look at a bigger picture. If the Democrats truly wanted to "take back America" they would spend 10 minutes looking at the trail of money that Abramoffs client, the Indian Casinos, has lavished on both parties in the last 10-12 years. Do a little internet research, it is truly eye-opening. Abramoff's dough is so ridiculously small potatoes compared to what is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Yes, Abramoff only gave personal money to republicans. Now can we look at a bigger picture. If the Democrats truly wanted to "take back America" they would spend 10 minutes looking at the trail of money that Abramoffs client, the Indian Casinos, has lavished on both parties in the last 10-12 years. Do a little internet research, it is truly eye-opening. Abramoff's dough is so ridiculously small potatoes compared to what is happening. I resent lying for the sake of damage control. Having said that - yes, I am sure this is small stuff compared to what is really going on. And yes, addressing the problem as a whole is much more important that addressing examples of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The real joke is Congress is going to clean itself up, they are all a bunch of whores every last politician in DC. Get use to it nothing is going to change just business as usual on our dime. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: We need to be careful posting articles in this forum you may get hounded as saying "America Sucks" -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You were saying??...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I'm sure the pictures will eventually come out. Hopefully both men are clothed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You were saying??...... Cat got your tongue??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Get used to corruption? I'd rather not. How about we go after corruption and try to stop it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Cat got your tongue??? Are you talking to me? If so, what are you asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 No, not fair. Nobody is saying we need to limit scope. We need to do the following:1) Investigate illegal activities, including those by Abramoff. 2) Pass laws to prevent this from happening in the future. You seem interested in investigating illegal activities. Care to include Gore / Clinton? that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I agree Alex. So why do you NOT want to include the activities of Dems who received money directed by Abramoff? Why the free pass? Corruption is corruption isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 I agree Alex. So why do you NOT want to include the activities of Dems who received money directed by Abramoff?Why the free pass? Corruption is corruption isnt it? We should investigate them all. Corruption is corruption and we should not allow it no matter who is doing it. It looks like Reps got caught with the Abramoff thing more than Dems, but I am sure there are Democratic versions of Abramoffs as well. Hopefully the fear of political fallout will make both parties cooperate when it comes to eliminating (read - slowing down) corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Good. Then we agree. The breakdowns I have seen are 2.9 mill to GOP and 1.5 to Dems. Let's investigate, and where appropriate prosecute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 2) Pass laws to prevent this from happening in the future. Why, so they can be broken again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Look most politicians are corrupt...they sell their votes in congress to whomever gives them the most momey, or donates enough money to their causes or hires their relatives or promises them lucrative jobs when they finish working as a "public servant" Abramoff is being accused of influence peddling....i.e. steering donations(not necessarily his toward politicians in return for their vote/support on issues) Abramoff has given to both republicans and democrats but currently it is the republicans that are under investigation for this form of quid pro quo...and personally I hope every single politician that Abramoff dealt with in this manner is bent over and butt raped but it isn't going to happen......corruption will continue long after every single membr of this board is dead.......were this exists political will there exists money to buy that political will....its a complete joke to think that congress can regulate itself..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Why, so they can be broken again? yeah, good point. Laws are worthless without proper enforcement (Speed Limit ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Well, at least one picture has emerged... and it's from an event that the White House said Abramoff didn't attend! http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158908,00.html Just how close was the relationship between the White House and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff? The Bush Administration again faced questions about those ties after an e-mail Abramoff sent a journalist friend surfaced last week in which Abramoff wrote that he had met President Bush almost a dozen times over the past five years, and even received an invitation to the President's Crawford, Texas, ranch along with other large political donors. Bush "has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met," Abramoff mused in the e-mail last month, adding that, He "saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids." The White House, however, has continued to assert that the President had no recollection of ever meeting Abramoff. When TIME reported in January that it had viewed unpublished photographs of Abramoff with Bush, aides responded that the pictures meant nothing since the President is photographed with thousands of supporters and White House visitors every year. Now, finally, the first such photo has come to light. It shows a bearded Abramoff in the background as Bush greets an Abramoff client, Raul Garza, who was then the chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Bush senior advisor Karl Rove looks on. The photograph was provided to TIME by Mr. Garza. The meeting took place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House on May 9, 2001. Told about the photograph in January, the White House said it had no record that Abramoff was present at the meeting. Shown the photograph today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the White House had still found no record of Abramoff's presence but confirmed that it is Abramoff in the picture. McClellan told TIME: "The President has taken countless, tens of thousands of pictures at home and abroad over the last five years. As we've said previously a photo like this has no relevance to the Justice Department's investigation [of Abramoff]." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.