C'mon, Matt, two visits in six years was enough for Bush to give Abramoff half of his billion shares of KBR stock...

I'll bet in those 2 visits they plotted to take over the world, ruin the environment, destroy the economy and give all kinds of favors to all their fat cat rich friends!

Did I miss any? / sarcasm off

The proof is in the pudding:

"Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to fraud charges and is cooperating with prosecutors in a corruption probe that could implicate officials across Washington.

In his plea, Abramoff admitted that he showered golf trips, sports tickets, meals and gifts on lawmakers in return for actions that would help his clients."

The visitor logs that where released have been edited. They are not complete. Id say this is bad because it means the whitehouse is hiding something even after a judge ordered them to give up the visitors logs.

Maf

No question he did and no question some Democrats and Republicans will go down for this. Please, tell us what this has to do with Bush because there sure were a lot of "He's guilty" rings coming from the left on Bush / Abramoff not long ago.

Sort of like the Porter Goss rumblings this past week from the left....haven't seen anything to back any of that crap up yet either. Perhaps a blue dress with a stain exists or something.

I wouldn't make too much out of the number of visits. Remember Charlie Manson only made 1 visit to the Tates.

And remember, folks...

It's not the substance of the charges that matters. It's the seriousness of the charge that matters...

The people on the left could face a huge mountain of evidence irrefutably exonorating Bush of all charges. That's irrelevant. They SAY it is so, therefore IT IS so. Don't dare to have the audicity to question them on the charges! If you do, that means you're a bush-bot, racist, homophobic redneck with your head stuck up your anus...

This is a non-story. Maybe you will have to wait and see about Miss-gerald's prosecution goes.

Also, the Dow is nearing a high, the economy is strong, the budget deficit is going sharply down, the tax cut extension will pass tomorrow or Friday. All is good.

A CONSERVATIVE group says "At first glance, these documents seem incomplete when compared to other White House visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch. We therefore have reason to believe there are additional details about Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House that have not been disclosed."

There is also the visit on December 22, 2003 that were photographed by Reflections, a White House approved photography company. They admit they purged those photos from their website ReflectionsOrders.com but Archive.org stored them first. Archive.org still had the day listed, while Reflections' website has deleted that day. The story was covered here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php

That day is the most troubling because the photos show Abramoff in the Oval Office, something that has not been reported anywhere.

I've been in the Oval Office myself back in the Clinton admin, so it's not that big a deal, but the Prez wasn't there holding my hand at the time... and my name hasn't been scrubbed from the registry.

...It's the seriousness of the allegations, not the substance of the charges...

*Shrugs*

It's wait to early to get anyone's panties in a bunch over this. The biggest problem I have with all of this is that even with all of these scandals of corruption and such we won't end up with new faces in politics. By the time anyone gets up to the federal level they've already had probably a decade of time being "indoctronated" into "how things are done" in the "big leagues."

Gone are the days (if there ever were) of Mr. Smith heading to Washington.

Gozer...I think those days never existed.

Party bosses chose lackeys they could control.

Yes, gone are the days of Mr. Smith going to Washington. Now we have the Mr. Kennedys, booze, sex/drugs, cars, water, bridges, fleeing, and hitting barriers.

Maybe the dems can forge some more documents and "create" some more visits. Then the lib MSM, as todys of the dems, can run with the forged documents. Then gallop can run a poll about it, weighing the poll 70 percent dems, 10 percent republican and 20 percent independents who lean dem. Then the lib MSM can run stories about the poll results.

Now, now Tina. Are we saying thet Mr. Kennedy is the only naughty boy in politics? Surely you have heard of Duke Cunningham. Then there's the lovely Mr. Delay. This is a problem will pols of all stripes.

And there is now some question that the transcripts of Mr. Abramoffs visits to the White House may have been tampered with.

Ash,
For the record, Manson never went to the Tate's house; he was at Terry Melcher's house.

And you moonbats seem to find conspiracy everywhere. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; and I'm heading outside to enjoy a Padron and scotch, while you cower behind the curtains. There coming to take you away ...

The total number of known visits is 5, not 2:

March 6, 2001 (Secret Service log)
May 9, 2001 (Oval Office meeting with photo)
Hannukah 2001 (Hannukah reception)
Hannukah 2002 (Hannukah reception)
Jan. 20, 2004 (Secret Service log)

Hannukah reception? Huh I didn't know they had those.

Yeah, I think there's never been a Mr. Smith in Washington either. It takes too much money to get into politics, and once you're in the only way up is with more money and hence more people wanting a piece of you or your ear. It's a wonder anyone can get anything done politically now a days.

Who cares if its 2, 5 , 10, etc. Nobody is even talking about it on the un-MSM. Its about tax cut extension, boomoing economy, and booming stock market.

Asked why the logs were incomplete (did not include three other known visits by Abramoff):

“Secret Service spokesman Tom Mazur said the computerized logs have never been considered a complete record of access to the White House and the Old Executive Office Building. Guests arriving for large gatherings often show identification and pass through metal detectors without being issued temporary passes, Mazur said.”

So as long as you are with a large group, anyone can just walk in to the WH? Don’t you just love our national security?

From ABC News:

McClellan has said that Abramoff attended Hanukkah receptions at the White House in 2001 and 2002, and some additional staff-level meetings. "But I said I couldn't rule out that there might be other large events that may have taken place that he attended, but that's what I know and that still stands," McClellan said.

It's your blog to do with as you please, but maybe you could add an update correcting the number?

"For the record, Manson never went to the Tate's house; he was at Terry Melcher's house."

Just like a bean counter to criticize this. did you not get the essence of the message.

bean counters! always lost in the statistics and miss the forest.

conspiracy? hmmm interesting from the side that sees a terrorist under every bed or millions of phone calls

and bane if you really want to split beans, how do you know i meant their residence when i said tates. I may have meant the tates as in person tates. like i saw the tates while shopping last night.

comprende?

Well, that set me straight!
I just assumed your writing skills were as bad as your grasp of history. “Tate’s” would be the correct possessive, as there was only one Tate in the Polanski house.

That’s the problem with people that don’t understand accountants; “close enough” is no way to go through life. Say what you mean, be specific, don’t guess. You have made so many factual errors that no one would take your arguments seriously. You can’t even get one fact right about the most infamous criminal investigation of our lifetime.

Phone calls? Before you and Barney spout off more conspiracy theories, why not get the facts? Or don’t facts fit your agenda?

Well, that set me straight!

Okay. I accept your apology.

There are facts then there are truths. Did you not understand what my point was? That's whats important.

How does your obsession with facts square with an earlier exchange we had when you passed yourself off as a small business owner. But when pressed admited you work for the government as a forensic bean counter? Was that a lie? Or merely a bending of the truth?

"there was only one Tate in the Polanski house."

As long as we are fact checking, Sharon Tate was pregnant at the time- so there were more than one
Tate at the house at the time.

Oh sweet is revenge, fact boy.

I find this hysterical. These guys on the left are questioning the log books....NOW?

Hello....Monica Lewinsky anyone? The so called "missing logs" anyone?

Then we have ray, ray the clown boy saying the were edited? Document shredding Rose Law Firm ring a bell there Ray, ray or where you still a preschooler at the time.

Please, you guys are a riot of laughter so keep it coming. I always enjoy reading the hypocrisy from the left.

Let me make sure I also understand...he went to two Hannukah celebrations with over 500 people and apparently the two of them slipped away to try and overtake the world?

Is that it or was he just one of the 500+ having drinks and if he was lucky got a photograph with the President?

Please....you guys need more tinfoil on the head, it's not conducting very well right now with the aliens above.

Warrior, Don’t forget, after the Vince Foster suicide, all the documents were spirited out of his office by Hilary and her staff before the police were allowed in.

Arse,
Stick to one story; I never said I was a forensic accountant; I said I’m a fiscal analyst. My wife and I own a small business, we’ve actually owned three businesses.

Pregnant? What a dimwitted response; the child’s name would have been Polanski. Christ, do you even realize how lame you look trying to defend what was a bad analogy to begin with?

No, you said your wife owned a business. You were a government empoloyee.

Go back and check it out.

Polanski,

Well look who is now grasping at theoretical straws. Many women choose to keep their maiden name and pass it on to their children.

This is just too damned stupid to keep arguing about.

My analogy still stands: A lot of damage can be done in one visit. Although in the case of the Abramoff visits it was in fact more than two.

California is a community property state, dipwad. And her legal name was Polanski.

“First, I am a government fiscal analyst; I do this for a living. My job is to make things run more efficient; when has raising taxes ever made a company more efficient?
I have owned two successful businesses in the past, I sold them both. At present, my wife owns a law firm, this is a community property State and she is a sole proprietor.”

Well beannie you are such a purist with language I would have assumed you would say what you mean and not leave those of us who live in the United States to know the community property laws of Kal-e-fornia.

"she is a sole proprietor." wtf?

Her legal name was Polanski. But her public name was Tate. My statement was made on the behalf of her public persona. HaHa!

Gee, guess you told me!

Finally, my analogy STILL stands.

Ash,

If you are counting the baby as a second person, then you must be admiting it is alive. And in that case, abourting it would be murder. Wouldn't it? So maybe you should just count the mother and child as 1 since you dont want to go there.

And yes your analogy still stands, all it takes is one meeting with the pres, in a room full of people, to destroy the world. We get it. Guilty before proven innnocent. yadda yadda.

Ash,

If you are counting the baby as a second person, then you must be admiting it is alive. And in that case, aborting it would be murder. Wouldn't it? So maybe you should just count the mother and child as 1 since you dont want to go there.

And yes your analogy still stands, all it takes is one meeting with the pres, in a room full of people, to destroy the world. We get it. Guilty before proven innnocent. yadda yadda.

Ash,
sole proprietor (wtf)
Even I know this one, in California a business is either 1) sole proprietorship, 2) partnership or 3) corporation.
California is community property so his wife’s business is his business.
And I don’t get the other part, if Manson was never at the Tate-Polanski house how does your analogy work?

*Oh brother*

For the set back class:

It was never about one or two Tates. It was not about Mansons. It was not about sole proprietorship.

It was about what can happen in one meeting.

So whether one meeting occured between Abramof (sp) or a thousand, a lot could have happened.
BTW the number seems to be around 5 meetings.

It all goes to credibility (again) of the president when he says I never met the man.

So I'm laying this to rest for myself.

ANd it goes to credibility when you accept as gosphel wild conpiracy thearies with exceedingly flimsy evidence not on the basis of "The facts seem to show it to be true" but on the basis of "I WANT it to be true" Are you FOx Mulder now? "I WANT to believe. ."

. .the Truth is indeed out there, but the lies are inside your head. .

If it wasn't about sole proprietorship, why did you call me liar about my business? If it wasn't about Tates, why did you bring up the pregnancy? If it wasn't about Manson why did you bring it up?
And why not answer Rath's question? If Manson was never in the Tate-Polanski house just how the hell do you make your simplistic, moronic, analogy?
And don't ever call me a liar again.

Rath, there is also a Limited Liability company (LLC) that combines the tax advantages of a sole proprietorship with the protections of a Corporation.