"Secrecy Invoked on Abramoff Lawsuits" (Bush's attempt at a coverup)...

[Indi Guy]

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption," according to a court order.

But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said 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 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.

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.110543.html

[Reno.Muse]

1. pretty important but easy to ignore ...

sigh ...

[Indi Guy]

6. That's exactly why this kind of crap needs to be exposed...

...time after time.

[Indi Guy]

7. Stop with the "sighing" already!...

Call out these bastards for the laws they break! Nixon went down for lesser violations!

[aquart]

2. Secret Service is supposed to guard him in or out of prison.

It's not supposed to prevent Bush from going to prison.

Or maybe they just don't think it will be a fun gig.

[Indi Guy]

3. There has never been a more diseased administration in our nation's history...

Cheny/Bush make Nixon look like Lincoln... :puke:

[L. Coyote]

4. More here, a scathing blog from Scott Horton

FROM: President Bush and Jack Abramoff meetings" reportedly have been frequent"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2392986

One of Aristotle’s key tests in the definition of forms of government is recited in the Politics: What do you call a state whose ruler, in his conduct of the affairs of state, is enshrouded in secrecy, particularly when the facts, if disclosed, would alert the people to his lawlessness or criminality, but conversely, the same ruler spies constantly upon his people giving them no repose in the conduct of their own personal affairs? Such a ruler, says Aristotle, is called a tyrant, and the quality of his rule is called tyranny. So let’s be clear what the Bush Justice Department is busily constructing. The standards for a democracy are something altogether different.

[Indi Guy]

5. I just kicked your thread...

Thanks for thinking properly.