WP: Photos of Bush With Abramoff Are Withheld

[kskiska]

White House Calls Pictures Irrelevant to Ethics Inquiry

Tuesday, January 24, 2006; 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.

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.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300333.html

[Ian David]

1. Also the up-the-skirt shots Abramoff took of Laura with his camera phone

[LynnTheDem]

2. If they are "NOT RELEVANT" why hide them???

HMMMM?

[savemefromdumbya]

5. Exactly why hide them!

the more they hide them the more we want to see them!

[tavalon]

29. Now, don't go making sense

The sheeple aren't going to question. Why should you? Do you hate America? ;)

[LynnTheDem]

61. ARRRGH I did it again!!!

I HATE when I make sense! Honest, I been trying to kick the habit!

BAD me! :spank: BAD!

[thefloyd]

3. NSA got to the source must be spying.

....

[kskiska]

4. Precedent established

(snip)

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.

[Mabus]

8. but everything changed after 9/11

:sarcasm:

[savemefromdumbya]

6. I wonder twhat he meant, he didn't do any favors?

[bettyellen]

7. if that isn't Capitol Hill Blue's scoop, almost word for word....

funny.

[thebigidea]

25. it isn't. Nothing in this article about Crawford visits.

[bettyellen]

60. true. but mentioning the kids and their schools, is mighty detailed

sounds like the sources are close. gives me hope the crawford stuff is correct too.

[Scout1071]

9. We need these photos. Some disagreed with me last night, but they are

necessary to help shape public opinion. A dozen photos of them together? Remember how much damage the pictures/video of Bil going thru the receiving line and hugging Monica? Played over and over and over again. Beaten into our subconscious.

We need these photos.

But I will say that I find the source of the photos more curious by the moment. Abramoff is publicly saying he won't release them? He was my main subject last night. I thought he was selling for money or sending the White House a message by showing them around and getting the word out that he COULD sell them.

Now, not so sure.

[fed-up]

12. Photo shop the "Bill & Monica" pics w/Bush & Abramoff n/t

[NYC]

22. Maybe the White House got the message.

...thought he was selling for money or sending the White House a message...

[wishlist]

39. Little impact of Bush lie without photo evidence, like Abu Ghraib n/t

[daleo]

10. "If they are no big deal, then release them"

"Otherwise, what are you trying to hide?"

Repeat at frequent intervals.

[f-bush]

11. If the prosecutor has any balls...

he will subpeona them!

[DemonFighterLives]

53. Good Answer

Why are they allowed to tease with them? They ought to confiscate anything to do with this criminal operation. There was a time when the federales would move in and no stone would be left unturned. Whatever happened to our justice system?

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. This is getting downright silly

Put up or shut up, media. Publish those pictures or quit talking about them.

[onenote]

36. hard to publish what you don't have

They'll be published in a heartbeat if they can get them. But from everything I've read, the source who has the pics (almost certainly Abramoff himself) isn't giving them to the media...at least not yet.

onenote

[Triana]

14. bu$hit's thugs probably threatened someone...

...that's how crime rings work. Threaten to kill them or their families if they release the photos. Or - otherwise make it very worth their while NOT to. Silence and complicity can be bought...the BFEE does it all the time, no doubt.

[rocktivity]

15. Whose photos are they anyway--Abramoff's? The White House's?

Abramoff...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...Abramoff...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...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.

Well, who showed the photos to the the magazines--Abramoff? The source? "One of the participants" mentioned above? Not that it makes a difference--since none of them is denying that the photos exist, they've authenticated them without really trying. And it's certainly evidence that Bush and McClellan LIED about Bush's knowing, meeting, or remembering meeting Abramoff. I had a feeling this could happen--like the Abu Grhaib photos, out of (public) sight, out of mind.

:headbang:
rocknation

[JackORoses]

17. i posted this in a thread the other day:

It is Incredibly interesting that one of the photos has Bush's sig

This makes it appear to be a Trophy of sorts

Who would collect such a trophy???

Why,
Jack Abramoff of course!

These photos are likely from his personal collection of 'Photos with Bigshots'.

His former 'bigshot' friends have now turned their collective backs on him...
Hung him out to dry.

The 'bigshots' now frantically race to remove all traces of ties,
But betrayal is a double-edged sword,
Jack is now cooperating with the Prosecution.
and
He's full of Information.
Words and Pictures

Perhaps we are witnessing the opening days of
Jack's Revenge

***

now we hear this Today about a half dozen Trophies on Jack's desk

I think we all know who has been showing these to reporters.

Perhaps they cannot be published because they are evidence in a criminal case...

Jumpin' Jack Flash, it's a gas,gas,gas

[druidity33]

38. simple explanation...

The photos were taken by a WH photographer, therefore owned by the WH. These files have been purged, but there have been hard copies made... A'off showed his copies but can't "release" them for publication because he does not own the reproduction rights and will get sued if he allows them to be copied. If the WH doesn't release these images, there is no one who "legally" can. :(


...little bathroom stickers...

[WePurrsevere]

40. Actually who owns the WH? WE do... WE are the employers of BushCo

and unless the photographer was paid for with private funds... or would jeopardize national security they belong to US. Much like many of NASA's pics, our tax dollars pay for this stuff so they belong to the citizens of this country as we have a right to see what we're paying for.

That said I tend to think that these are from someone's private stash and they're shopping around for a publisher who will pay the best and/or give the best exposure.

It sounds like the WH has a bunch of pics as well but won't share nice with their employers (US) so we need to really push the Why not if you have nothing to hide show them... What are you hiding? They are PUBLIC property so show them.... repeat repeat repeat. :D

[druidity33]

42. signed releases?

Maybe the people in the photos have not signed releases? And won't ever sign them... would that matter in such a huge case? I am a photographer and i really can't sell anything with people in it without a signed release from everyone in the photo... especially if it's not in the most public of public areas (a private function is extremely difficult to publish photos of)... and even then, sometimes you need a release to show a famous building or landmark... it's petty of them i know but it may be a way in which they can stall release of the pics. I agree, we have to keep the pressure on them... and if it's evidence in an upcoming trial, all the better. In the end i think B*shco are digging themselves a bigger hole by denying contact, though it is their SOP. Looking forward to seeing it all come crumbling down.


...little bathroom stickers...

[WePurrsevere]

49. Possible but you don't need a signed release to publish pictures of Bush

or other similar public figures if I remember correctly. Your picture of Condi for commercial use would be a good example of that. :-) Think about how often pictures are published by the news media, they don't get signed releases of the people at events, protests, going to court, etc.

As for famous building or landmark... not if it's publicly owned (except if a picture would endanger national security) and some privately owned are open game as well for the press depending on the circumstances. For instance... if my house is robbed the press can take a picture and publish it without my permission... however if a private photographer wants to take a picture of it to publish in a book of old farms of the north country I think they would need to get my husband's or my permission.

Mind you I'm not a lwayer so am not sure of the legallity of it all but am going from "life examples". :)

[druidity33]

58. Condi pic...

I actually had a difficult time determining whether reproducing photos of public figures is illegal. My conclusions are... If the photo is attributed or if there is a disclaimer, you are supposed to get permission from owner to reproduce. The owner of the photo and the circumstances under which it is published determine whether a lawsuit is viable. But when you have teams of attorneys... it's easy to challenge any reproduction. As for the Condi pic and the rest on Little FlagArt, i have monkeyed with the photos enough and inserted enough of my own imagery that i can safely say it is no longer that photographers work. It's a fine line legally, but Warhol paved the way and i'll follow the path...

As for public buildings, i live right near a UMass campus and have needed to get permission to photograph the pond and various historic buildings on campus... apparently they make money from postcards and tours and feel ok about limiting usage of these properties in pictorial form. I'm not saying it's legal, just that it is... i had to sign a form saying i would not "commercially reproduce" or otherwise use the images for profit. :(

That's why i try to take pics like this...

[WePurrsevere]

59. I agree with what you say as for UMass I'm not sure if legal or not...

but there are plenty of other places to take photos I'm not sure I'd find it worth fighting them over either.

That's a truly wonderful picture. B-) Thank you for sharing it. I especially like the way the eye is drawn to different areas in the picture.

I need to find out about taking pictures of abandoned houses for a book I've had in my head since we moved up here. We live in northern NY and there are many old houses that have been abandoned that look so sad and yet one can still see the beauty that was there at one time when they were loved and cared for. Photography has been my hobby for more then a few years but I'd love to make money at it someday (although I do a lot of nature pics my husband and I joke about making our numerous furkids "earn" their keep as my models :D ). Mostly I work with stained and warm glass but recently I ran across a process to put a photo directly on glass so I'll be experimenting with that as soon as we have my studio set back up. :)

[druidity33]

62. hard to make money...

I've found it difficult to make a living on Art Photography... have to be more a salesperson than anything else. As for abandoned houses... they are fun to shoot, though be wary of private property and trespassing. You're photo on glass... is this using liquid light (B&W) or some type of printed transfer paper? Is it color? Color "decal" type images would be cool... anyway, off to work at the photo lab... grunt.



a couple miles from my home in Massachusetts...

[rocktivity]

45. So in ADDITION to lying about the Bush-Abramoff relationship

they've destroyed evidence and obstructed justice. But that still leaves the question of who showed the photos to Time and The Washingtonian--it certainly wouldn't be to Abramoff's advantage to have done so. Like I said, now that we know the photos do exist (and that they contradict Bush's assertion that Abramoff was a bit player), the only thing withholding them accomplishes is catching Bush in yet another lie.

:shrug:
rocknation

[wordpix]

48. disagree-Jackoff could well have shown photos to Time, saying

"I was just doing what the heads of BushCo told me to do, I was an underling, not in charge of the operation and here's proof that I worked closely with Bush."

It's to his advantage to make that case.

[rocktivity]

56. It would also be to his advantage to publish the photos, then

especially if they're his personal property rather than White House's. If Abramoff means to save himself by taking on the role of unwitting dupe, it's to his advantage to show that Bushco have been untruthful about the nature of their relationship, not to mention that they masterminded the whole operation.

:headbang:
rocknation

[wordpix]

47. very plausible explanation and also correct, WE the people own WH photos

[pocoloco]

16. Who you gonna believe?

Me or your own two eyes???

[lovuian]

18. Oh CMon lets see Jack and Bush together did George give him

a kiss like Liberman... makes ya wonder doesn't it...

[zippy890]

28. LOL - maybe he gave him a McCain hug

I bet repub operatives are trying to buy those photos.

[0007]

35. ...or sitting cross legged in a Tee Pee with Jack Abramoff

on an Indian Reservation smoking a peace pipe.

So the White House can tell the media what photos to show?



[alfredo]

19. We paid for those pictures, and they have nothing to do with national

security. I see no reason to prevent us from seeing them.

[HuffleClaw]

20. "will not release them on grounds..."

that they are HARMFUL to the chimp. what a joke. if they had, say, pics of abramoff with a certain ex-president, they'd be printing ten thousand life-sized posters for distribution.

[gatorboy]

21. Ahh the ole catch 22...

We won't release them cause they're not important...But if they're not important why not release them?

[NVMojo]

23. It doesn't matter, subpoena the guest sign in, the same record Gannon's

visits were recorded in ...

Also, read this:

The Pimping of the Presidency

This article outlines when the Coushattas Tribal Chairman went to DC in May 2001 with Abramoff and met with GWBush.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13

I'm quite sure there are ample public records out there to prove the White House was for sale.

[paulthompson]

24. I heard...

I heard on the Randi Rhodes show last night that she had posted a picture of Bush and Abramoff from 2000 on her website, but I can't find it there. Can anyone?

[Up2Late]

26. No matter, they showed them on The Daily Show tonight...

...sorry I didn't tape it. (I'll try to do some screen captures tomorrow).

You know, shaking hands in the reception line, one of those terrible pictures in front of the white fireplace, and my favorite, the Ol' Time, brown toned pictures, as ol' time Cowboys!

The video might be at this link by the time you read this: <http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml>

[flordehinojos]

27. dear scotty mcclellan, you own words,

"Trying to say there's more to it than the president taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd," have the sound of a GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY,line-- written all over it

"Bush", McClellan said, "does not recall meeting Abramoff and did not do any favors for the disgraced lobbyist." GUILTY LYING SOBs both bush and you

so why do you and he hate AMERICA so much? why do you and he see her as a bitch that you can rape, and rape 'till the end of times? why do you abuse her children? why do you discount her history? why do you disrespect her elders, i.e., her founding fathers? why are you seeding devastation upon her? why do you deprave her of so much?

[loudsue]

30. He was part of Bush's TRANSITION TEAM, for chrissake!!!

Whaddayamean shrub doesn't KNOW him????

This is just one more lie told over & over. It still doesn't make it true.

:kick::kick::kick:

[nicknameless]

33. The Transition Team was only 48 people. Of course * knows him. (n/t)

[0007]

37. Man, could Walt Disney make a movie out of this scenario...

using animals as the main characters.

[wordpix]

50. why the HELL isn't the press corps asking about this?

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. So we've gone from - the President has never met Abramoff

to maybe they met a few times

to maybe there might be a few pictures of them together but these were group photo ops

to maybe there are dozens of pictures and meetings that don't mean anything but we can't release the pictures because that wouldn't be prudent.

Lie, lie, lie. Why all the lies?

Must have something to hide.

[wordpix]

51. see my ponderings, #48, that could be the "something" you're talking about

[bklyncowgirl]

32. There was only one picture of Bill Clinton with Monica, wasn't there?

That picture of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky hanging all over him like a love struck groupie with a rock star was more damaging than anything but the notorious blue dress.

The Bush administration doesn't any images of King George next to Abramoff's smiling mug--or worse yet that touching photo of George and Jack and the various Abramoff Kiddypoos that Casino Jack used to hang above his desk to impress the rubes.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. So the WH is so afraid of these pictures

that they are refusing to release them, makes you wonder what else they are afraid of?

No wonder Bush put on lock down every document he and his daddy ever created that he could get his hands on.

[rodeodance]

69. you betcha

[Strathos]

41. Why don't they just ask Jack if he knows Bush?

Do you think he would tell the truth. Maybe for an even lighter sentence, would he give up THE MAN?

[elehhhhna]

43. I'm sure jack had them all over his office walls. Any photos out there

of Jack at his desk, etc? Bet we could find 'em

[carolinalady]

44. Jack is holding the pictures to assure a lenient sentence

Bush's babe is in charge of the investigation.

[wordpix]

52. that's what I think

[robbedvoter]

46. They're right. next thing, you scoundrels will want DNA tests on them

and I tell you, semen is only relevant on blue dresses. NEVER on photos! NEVER, I tell ya!

[Doctor_J]

54. Whoever had them has been either bought off or

Hatfield'ed

[MrBenchley]

55. Chimpy and his Odious Chums

Funny how many of this corrupt drunk's pals have to run from the spotlight while pResident Failure denies he even knows them....

Osama and the Bin Laden family, Enron's Kenny-boy Lay, assault weapon manufacturer Richard Dyke, Jack Abramoff....

How many others can we think of?

[Tight_rope]

57. I love it when Scottie comes out and makes a fool of himself...

As though anyone ever believes the lying SOB!

[IowaGuy]

63. Information wants to be free....

it's just a matter of time, drip.....drip.....drip......

Watchin' the repukes twist on this is good popcorn eatin' entertainment....

[demo dutch]

64. File under Freedom of Information Act

[brentspeak]

65. Trust the people, honor and dignity back to the White House

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[fooj]

66. Geez.............

This is disgusting. They are the filthiest bunch of treasonous traitors I've ever seen. How dare they DECIDE what is "absurd"? Fuck them and their perpetual bullshit!

Peace.

[Up2Late]

67. Exclusive: Bush/Abramoff Photos from The Daily Show!

NOTE: If you don't already know, The Daily Show is "fake news," even though they usually give more real information the the average Cable "news" show does. In other words, these are fake.


In the Receiving line


In the Oval Office


At Old-time Cowboy Photo Day


I can't remember how he described these last few...




At his Son's Bar-mizva (sp?)

[rodeodance]

68. yah gotta wonder who is advicing the WH?--