December 4, 2007

Contact: Naomi Seligman Steiner 202.408.5565 nseligman@citizensforethics.org

4 Dec 2007 // TIMELINE:

• 1/20/06: Judicial Watch files FOIA request with Secret Service (SS) for Abramoff White House visitor logs

• 2/2/06: CREW files FOIA request with SS for all White House visitor records of Abramoff and associates

• 2/22/06: Judicial Watch files lawsuit based on 1/20/06 FOIA (Judicial Watch v. Secret Service)

• 4/25/06: Court in Judicial Watch enters agreed order and joint stipulation under which SS ordered to produce all responsive documents by 5/10/06

• 5/10/06: CREW files complaint against SS based on 2/2/06 FOIA (“DHS I”)

• 5/16/06: Judicial Watch files motion to compel based on SS’s failure to produce all docs, including WAVES records; Judicial Watch points out that during Clinton Administration it got WAVES records from SS in response to a subpoena

• 5/16/06: SS files motion to dismiss Judicial Watch together with declaration of Kathy J. Lyerly (Lyerly Decl. I), explaining how SS looked for responsive docs, where it looked, including SS searchable database, and fact that since 10/04 SS has been retaining copies of WAVES records at NARA’s request

• 5/17/06: SS and White House enter Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) stating that all visitor records were, are and will be at all times presidential records under exclusive legal custody and control of White House, not agency records of SS; existence of MOU not made public

• 6/12/06: The Washington Post files FOIA request for visitor records of people visiting specified individuals in VP office; also requests expedition based on upcoming election and Libby trial

• 7/07/06: SS files second declaration of Lyerly (Lyerly Decl. II) in Judicial Watch case explaining how SS has now found additional WAVES visitor records on its computer hard drives predating October 2004, that SS believes more exist and that SS has found more Abramoff visitor records

• 7/27/06: CREW files amended complaint in DHS I adding claim under Federal Records Act relating to SS’s policy of destroying visitor records

• 8/31/06: SS grants The Washington Post’s request for expedition of its FOIA request

• 9/13/06: Counsel to the VP Shannon Coffin sends letter to SS directing agency not to retain any documents and information related to visitors to VP Residence and stating all such records are under custody and control of VP; existence of letter not made public

• 9/20/06: SS sends letter to The Washington Post asserting for first time that records it seeks are presidential records not subject to FOIA

• 9/20/06: SS produces documents to CREW in response to FOIA request with certain redactions

• 9/21/06: SS files motion to dismiss CREW’s FOIA claim in DHS I on ground it has produced all responsive records; no mention of White House control over records; in support SS submits declaration of Kathy Lyerly (Lyerly Decl. III) explaining SS’s search for responsive records by SS personnel including search of SS hard drives, advising that since 10/04 SS has temporarily retained WAVES records at NARA’s request even though SS has no continuing interest in records once visit is complete

• 10/4/06: CREW files 2nd FOIA request with SS for visitor records of prominent conservative religious leaders

• 10/10/06: The Washington Post files complaint and request for preliminary injunction

• 10/14/06: SS files opposition to The Washington Post’s PI motion, arguing visitor records are not agency records but instead are under exclusive legal control of OVP; includes declaration of Claire O’Donnell, Assistant to VP, attesting in part to practice of SS since 1/20/01 to transfer visitor records to White House but saying nothing about VP Counsel letter sent month earlier, declaration of Lyerly (Lyerly Decl. IV), declaration of Paul Morrissey, Dep. Ass’t Dir. of SS attesting to practice of SS since 2001 to transfer records to White House and erase copies

• 10/18/06: Court in Washington Post v. SS issues order granting PI

• 10/25/06: SS seeks stay in district court pending appeal of PI; includes supplemental declarations of Claire O’Donnell and Paul Morrissey with 5/17/06 MOU attached; first time MOU made public

• 11/9/06: CREW files complaint against SS based on 2nd FOIA when SS fails to respond (“DHS II”)

• 12/12/06: SS files supplemental declaration in DHS I and Judicial Watch claiming newly discovered information, paper access records located in “unexpected location,” and additional daily access lists for the VP residence “where such documents are not normally stored”

• 12/12/06: VP declarant files declaration in DHS I stating that VP maintains legal custody and control of records of visits to VP Residence “exclusive of DHS”

• 1/10/07: NARA states for first time, in answer to complaint brought by CREW under FOIA for docs relating to NARA’s October 2004 request of SS to retain docs, that WAVES records are presidential records

• 2/15/07: CREW moves for a TRO in DHS II based on evidence government may be destroying potentially responsive docs

• 3/5/07: In response to TRO SS files declaration that discloses for first time that up until 6/06, SS destroyed or transferred to the White House all records concerning access to the VP Residence

• 5/25/07: SS moves for summary judgment in DHS II and discloses a letter VP Counsel Shannon Coffin sent to SS on September 13, 2006; first time letter made public; in its motion SS argues that records are not agency records but records of the president and therefore not accessible through the FOIA; SS for first time acknowledges it has 19 pages of docs responsive to DHS I that it claims are exempt from disclosure

• 9/5/07: Parties file joint status report in DHS I in which SS represents it has “recently discovered information” relevant to CREW’s FOIA request and that it “intends to supplement its filings”

• 11/30/07: SS files supplemental motion in Judicial Watch identifying for first time possible existence of “Sensitive Security Records” that may be responsive to request for Abramoff White House visitor records but which it cannot disclose

Statement from Anne Weismann, CREW's Chief Counsel:

Efforts to gain access to the government’s records of now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s visits to the White House and vice president’s residence took a new and curious turn recently when the Secret Service disclosed that it may have additional “Sensitive Security Records,” the existence of which it can neither confirm nor deny. The disclosure was made in a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch challenging the failure of the Secret Service to fulfill the group’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for visitor logs of Mr. Abramoff’s White House visits. CREW also has a pending lawsuit for all visitor records of Mr. Abramoff and seven of his associates.

Nearly 19 months ago the government claimed it had records of only two visits by Mr. Abramoff, an astonishing claim given the statements of various White House officials acknowledging Mr. Abramoff’s presence at the White House for multiple social events. Since that time the government has submitted over 20 declarations in the three pending lawsuits seeking access to various White House visitor records, two of which CREW has brought. Pieced together, those declarations document multiple instances of newly discovered records after prior searches that Secret Service officials claimed were comprehensive and complete. Also documented are the purportedly “inadvertent” destruction of records by the Secret Service and vastly differing practices as to what the Secret Service retained after it provided copies of visitor records to the White House. Moreover, on at least two occasions, the White House has entered agreements relating to these records that were kept secret, even while litigation over the records was pending, and not disclosed until months later.

Additional legal tactics employed by the Bush White House include an abrupt change of position by the government on the status of Secret Service records of White House visits. Last fall for the first time the government claimed these records are the exclusive domain of the White House and therefore not subject to the FOIA. CREW is challenging that claim as well.