Question:

I have not heard the actual tape of these Questions, but as an excercise in eliciting meaning from very oblique words, have looked at the following text and added some emphasis that I find interesting. My under wstanding of the implication of these emphases follows, which leads to my Qs to other lawyers - whether there is any way around the apparent End Run that the WH may have done around this Court Order.

FIRST the text:

S.M. "I wouldn't look at [the Secret Service Log] as a complete historical record of things -- of events here at the White House...

Q. "What does THAT mean?

S.M. "[T]hey have CERTAIN records, but I wouldn't say that -- I would just not view that as a complete record, but they have certain records that THEY keep and that they will be providing [as required by Court Order]... [BUT HAH HA HA] They don't keep all those -- ALL historical records. It's just certain records that THEY keep that they will be providing.

NOW my interpretation:

I read this clearly ambiguous text as stating one of TWO possible things [of course another Q is whether I have missed some other viable interpretation, but I believe that the text is susceptible to only these 2 meanings]:

EITHER

[1] The Secret Service MAY, as we have assumed, KNOW of all historical visits to the White House but that KNOWLEDGE of the COMPLETE HISTORY of certain visits exists only INSIDE the heads of certain Secret Service Personnel; no COMPLETE written information exists at this time [i.e., info either was never placed in writing or once did but was scrubbed from the record] -- and frankly I do not find that S.M.'s words lend themselves very well to this interpretation, at least if my emphases are considered; OR

[2]There ARE complete written records of all visits inexistence at the W.H. SOMEWHERE --- [and S.M.s disclosure of this info allows S.M. to tell himself that he has been forthcoming to the press, not having decieved through omission of info known to him]. However, the the full record is not within the Secret Services' control and thus any FOIA release by them will be incomplete. Which means that Someone, Somewhere in the WH keeps ANOTHER set of books [and doing so, I believe is not as a matter of law criminal in and of itself as this is neither the financial or SEC world]. As only ONE set of Books is capable of being released by the S.S. to Judicial Watch via that court Order [the text of which I have not read but am surmising is directed at the Secret Serrvice as the presumed repository]. S.M.s words in this case indicate that Judicial Watch's presumtion as to the locale of the repository of records is an incorrect presumption, as the S.S. ONLY keeps "certain" kinds of records. Thus another, DIFFERENT set of records [is held by or during the period of delay has now been moved to] lets say, V.P. Cheney's office. Said records may be lawfully said to include "shadow visits by Super Duper Secret National Security consultants" - and we will not be able to discover whether such a claim is truth or lies. Even if truth, there may be commingled WITHIN these Super Duper Secret records, info as to Embarrasing Visits by Political Cronies And Crooked Lobbyists..

My understanding of FOIA law [admittedly not my field of expertise] suggests that in either scenario, the W.H. manages to retain secrets regarding Abramoff as the existing FOIA court Order is likely to be technically insufficient to force disclosure: getting full info under scenario #1 would next require that a Court agree to allow Judicial Watch to Subpoena personnel to testify as to information KNOWN to S.S. personnel but never recorded [or testimony that same was recorded but was then scrubbed out]; getting complete info in scenario #2 would require that the court's Order be re-drafted so as to be broad enough to encompass every single record of visits in existence within the WH regardless of the keeper of those records.

My Q for other lawyers is whether my take is correct that FOIA law is INSUFFICIENT to get around these scenarios: in the case of scenario #1, FOIA requests are not sufficiently coercive so as to allow citizen organizations to subpoena personnel to obtain information where such info is NOT in written form; and, in the case of scenario #2, information held by, say the V.P., may successfully be withheld under new SCOTUS precedent after the Energy Task Force case, so long as Cheney argues that same is part of info relating to his deliberative function; and only a Nixonian criminal investigation can now reach such info under SCOTUS precedent.

If I am correct that the White House has successfully stuck their collective finger in the eye of Judicial Watch, one is left with the Q of whether Mr. Fitzgerald has this information. If so my understanding is that we citizens will never learn the truth to rumors that there are upwards of 200 visits made over 10 months by Mr. Abramoff, unless indictments arise and the number of visits is considered by Fitz to be relevant to same.

thoughts? clarification?

OK legal minds - help me out here I'm just a lowly private practitioner!

The Secret Service will turn over whatever the White House tells it to turn over, i.e., visits by Jack Abramoff that do not implicate the President or any of his minions.

So, who cares? The public will be fed lies as usual.

Well I'm interpreting like everyone else but I'd say that McClellan, in a continuing attempt to be oblique backed himself into a corner and trapped himself in a manner where his responses imply something he may not have intended.

So is McClellan implying that perhaps Abramoff got himself appointed to Cheney's supersecret energy task force that gets to keep the names confidential?

If it weren't so important (his job), we'd all be laughing. Scott McClellan = Schmuck.

Geesh.

~Ken