« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Judge to White House: Nice Try
The White House may have lost a battle, but they have not lost the war.
For nearly two years, D.C. watchdogs Judicial Watch and Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington have been battling in court for Secret Service records of visits to the Bush White House and the Vice President's Office. The first request was for Jack Abramoff's visits, but they also set out to discover how often his associates and various conservative religious leaders had visited. Did they know what they were in for?
Over time, the White House has tried various legal theories to block the release. There was the imposing "mosaic theory," whereby seemingly innocuous information, such as visits to the White House, could prove a national security threat when combined with other seemingly innocuous information. And there was the Vice President's secret agreement with the Secret Service that even though the Secret Service makes and keeps the visitor records, they're not really Secret Service records (even though they'd been treated that way in the past), they're White House records, and thus not subject to FOIA. Oh, and there was the Vice President's order to destroy the records. And on and on.
Today, CREW had a good day in court, with a federal judge deciding that the secret agreement was bunk and that the Secret Service records really were public records. And there was also a partial victory. The judge denied CREW's motion to declare that the Secret Service could not destroy its White House visitor records once it had transferred copies to the White House; but because the judge said the records are public records, the White House now cannot destroy them without the say-so of the National Archives and Records Administration. And when you want to destroy documents, you really don't want any red tape, do you?
But the battle will go on. Anne Weisman, the chief counsel for CREW, told me that they're still working to get their hands on records that would show Abramoff's visits to the White House (so far the Secret Service has turned over records that show only eight or so visits): "We think there's more."
The decision today is the second one to find that the records should be publicly available, but it's likely to be appealed, and given the insuppressible legal ingenuity of this administration, it's highly unlikely that any more records will be produced without a fight. As Weisman put it: "If they don't want to follow the rule of law, then it does create a pretty disturbing and chaotic situation."
Comments (12)
Erick maciel wrote on December 17, 2007 6:44 PM:what i want to know is what else they are hiding?
Bob wrote on December 17, 2007 7:00 PM:You'll get to see just how influential some people are.
Lanny wrote on December 17, 2007 7:06 PM:Is it too hard for the populace to realize that the administration -- WORKS FOR US?
parrot wrote on December 17, 2007 7:24 PM:Keep fighting the good fight--let's hope the next Congress and next Administration won't be as corrupt...and this information can be used to bring folks before courts of law for prosecution for crimes against the Constitution.
moondancer wrote on December 17, 2007 7:40 PM:As John Amato at Crooks and Liars snarked, 137 visits to Rove by Jeff Gannon might raise some eyebrows..LOL
Bob- who bushco ruled for is more like it. Their utter contempt for the citizens isn't hard to figure out. Now maybe we find out who the more equal pigs are.
Freewheelin' Freddie wrote on December 17, 2007 8:29 PM:I can't figure out from the above if the records up to this ruling have already been destroyed or not. Has the WH already shredded the documents?
JB wrote on December 17, 2007 9:53 PM:Getting a hummer in the White House is much worse.
cocolopez wrote on December 17, 2007 11:06 PM:This is *America* (God bless it), and in America the *White House* has the right to spy on the *people* --- not the other way around!!! Why can't the courts get it through their thick skulls?!? Love it or leave it!!! (Maybe they should go to Iran.)
Pat Pattillo wrote on December 18, 2007 3:46 AM:Isn't the mem about warrantless wiretaps and surveillance that "I have nothing to fear if I have done nothing wrong"? Why should this be any less applicable to the White House? What moral authority have they demonstrated that would lead anyone to trust their use of absolute power behind a veil of total secrecy?
phil james wrote on December 18, 2007 9:37 AM:Anyone here want to place a bet on Bush ever capitulating on this (or any other) issue? I will cover all bets. People seem to forget that his royal excellence and omnipotent one, the one and only unitary executive commander-in-chief deciderer has all the powers granted to him by...well, because he says so and his buddies will swear to it. So do not hold your breath to see these logs. The WH is above the law (and owns the justice department) and can ignore anything the Congress and courts demand simply because they have done just that so far. And the only remedy...impeachment...requires a much stronger opposiiton party than the one feebly led by Harry Reid.
Slim wrote on December 18, 2007 9:38 AM:cocolopez - Nice, you caputured immature, myopic, deep-seeded stupidity perfectly. As well - the hilarious notion that the White House works for someone other than the people. I have to give you points for the near-crazed punctuation too, you really know how to lampoon a nutter post. Big ups.
For Truth wrote on December 18, 2007 11:24 AM:But, but, but ... they're keepin' us SAFE!
SAFE from the Terrists! It's the prezdnt's top prah-or-tee.
So, lissn: If ewe wont the terrists to win, ewe'll be in faver of handin' over secrets. Hour secrets. To the bad guys. To the evil-dewers.
Ahm here to keep you safe . . . well, safer, anyhow; we're not yet safe. but safer.