CREW has sued to obtain the records of Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House. The Hill is reporting on this development:

The Secret Service has 18 days to hand over White House visitor logs detailing disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s visits, according to Judicial Watch, a public interest legal group. 

Judicial Watch on Thursday announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia earlier in the week ruled against the Secret Service motion to dismiss the group’s open-records requests. The court’s Tuesday decision ordered the agency to finish processing the requests and provide all non-exempt records within 20 days of the court order.

For someone who claims to be a reformer and promises to change the ways of Washington, Sarah Palin has sure started off on the wrong foot.  Palin's email practices as governor of Alaska are strikingly similar to the email practices of the White House.

Alaska law, like federal law, requires all state agencies -- which includes the Governor’s Office -- to preserve public records that adequately document how they function do the business of the state.  AS 40.21.060.  Alaska law also requires each state agency to establish a records management program with controls over the creation, maintenance and use of records used in the conduct of current business, again mirroring the federal law.  And, like its federal counterpart, Alaska law defines “records” as including emails, which must be preserved as if they were paper records.

For Sarah Palin and her office this means that even if they are free to use outside email accounts to conduct state business -- which is far from clear -- they must still preserve those emails as public records documenting their functions, policies, decisions, etc.  But we know from emails that have leaked to the public that Sarah and her office are using outside email accounts precisely to avoid record preservation obligations.  Sound familiar?  It wasn’t that long ago we learned that top White House officials, including Karl Rove, were similarly using outside email accounts -- in their case accounts tied to the RNC -- to conduct government business but avoid leaving a paper trail.

Today, CREW released a fact sheet, PALIN ADMINISTRATION NOT SO OPEN OR TRANSPARENT AFTER ALL.  We're posting the full document below and the accompanying documents can be found here.   It's striking how closely the Palin administration follows the Bush administration's approach to transparency.  

PALIN ADMINISTRATION NOT SO OPEN OR TRANSPARENT AFTER ALL

Governor Sarah Palin campaigned in 2006 on the promise to “open the door wide to transparent and accountable government.”

FACTS

The Alaska Attorney General issued an opinion on August 21, 2008 concluding that state employees have a right to privacy while using state-issued communication equipment shortly after it was revealed that Governor Palin and her staff used their state-issued blackberrys and computers for communications related to Governor Palin’s efforts to have her former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired. [read Alaska AG opinion here]

This is a radical departure from Alaska’s previous position that employees have no expectation of privacy in government email. [read AK State Policy Regarding Personal Use of State Office Technologies here]

When confronted with Governor Palin’s abandonment of her promise to have an open and transparent government, her communication director claimed that commitment related only to “the stranded gas act versus the AGIA concept under Governor Palin.” (A gas pipeline development issue) [listen to communications director Bill McAllister on the Palin administration’s view of transparency here]

A review of the State of Alaska’s website, however, reveals that the phrase “open and transparent” is used repeatedly in regard to a wide variety of government initiatives

BUSH ADMINISTRATION COMPARISON

Governor Palin mirrors the Bush administration’s approach to transparency.

• When confronted with a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for documents from the White House Office of Administration (“OA”) that relate to the White House’s discovery of millions of missing emails, the Bush administration abruptly took the new position that the OA is not an agency subject to the FOIA.
• When confronted with requests for White House visitor records created and maintained by the Secret Service, the Bush administration took the novel position that the records are actually presidential records not available to the public under the FOIA.
• Bush White House staff had RNC email accounts on their blackberries to avoid creating public records of their actions.

The Bush administration's missing email saga continues.  CREW's Anne Weismann has it figured out -- the Bush White House wants to run out the clock and keep the public from seeing what are the public records of George Bush's presidency.

 The White House is missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office, according to an internal White House draft document obtained by The Associated Press.

The nine-page outline of the White House's e-mail problems invites companies to bid on a project to recover the missing electronic messages.

The work would be carried out through April 19, 2009, according to the Office of Administration request for contractors' proposals, which was dated June 20.

Last week, the White House declined to comment on the document.

On Wednesday, the White House refused to talk about internal White House contracting procedures, but said the information is "outdated and seriously inaccurate." It would not elaborate. The White House also declined to say whether it has hired a contractor for the work yet.

"With an eye on the clock, the White House continues to drag its feet and do everything possible to postpone public access to the records of this presidency," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a private watchdog group.

From investigative reporter Murray Waas:

The Justice Department investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys has been extended to encompass allegations that senior White House officials played a role in providing false and misleading information to Congress, according to numerous sources involved in the inquiry.

The widened scope raises the possibility that investigators will pursue criminal charges against some administration officials, and recommend appointment of a special prosecutor if there is evidence of criminal misconduct.

The investigators have been specifically probing the role of White House officials in the drafting and approval of a Feb. 23, 2007 letter sent to Congress by the Justice Department denying that Karl Rove (President Bush's chief political adviser at the time) had anything to do with the firing of Bud Cummins, a U.S. Attorney from Arkansas. Cummins was fired in Dec. 2006 to make room for Tim Griffin, a protégé and former top aide of Rove's.

The February 23 letter stated, "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin," and that the Justice Department was "not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

Federal investigators have obtained documents showing that Kyle Sampson, then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and Chris Oprison, then an associate White House counsel, drafted and approved the letter even though they had first-hand knowledge that the assertions were not true. The Justice Department later had to repudiate the Sampson-Oprison letter and sent a new one informing Congress that it could no longer stand by the earlier assertions.

 Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House briefing at Washington Post.com, doesn't think the illegal actions cited in the DOJ report were originated at the DOJ.  After all, Monica Goodling was the White House liaison:

The big fish keep swimming away.

The latest investigation into the overt politicization of the Department of Justice has meticulously documented how a handful of young political appointees blatantly violated federal laws and Justice Department policies by hiring career employees based on the extent of their devotion to Republican dogma.

But the report doesn't address who is responsible for creating the culture of corruption in which these aides thrived.

Who asked them to behave this way? Or, barring an explicit request, how did they come to conclude that this was what their superiors expected of them? Who twisted the Justice Department, designed to operate with a large degree of independence, into a political adjunct of the White House?

And is it really just a coincidence that Monica Goodling, the central culprit of this latest report, held the title of White House liaison?

A June report by the same two Justice Department offices that produced yesterday's findings concluded that over a five year period, aides stocked a prestigious hiring program with young conservatives, intending to reshape the department's ranks. Two more internal reports are in the works, one about political interference with the Civil Rights Division and the other about the role of politics in the administration's controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Whether the eager, young politicos who carried out these policies are held accountable is one question. But who was pulling their strings is another.

It's unlikely that former absentee landlord Alberto Gonzales was a key player here. Not only did some of these practices pre-date him, but his primary task, which he bungled, appears to have been to conceal the fact that he wasn't the one calling the shots.

Indeed, it's hard to reach any conclusion other than that White House political operatives masterminded a plan to defile the Justice Department's mission in the short run and to seed its ranks with people who will be in a position to continue the corruption for a long time to come.

Yesterday, CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Secret Service for records of all visits Stephen Payne made to the White House and residence of the vice president, following on the heels of a revelation by The London Times that Mr. Payne, a lobbyist and top Bush fundraiser, has attempted to sell access to top administration officials in exchange for contributions to the Bush library.  We know a thing or two about obtaining visitor records from the Bush administration.  CREW recently won a court victory in our lawsuit to obtain White House visitor records .

Interesting that Dana Perino already cited the ongoing litigation as a reason to deny access to Payne's visitor records.  That just doesn't make sense:

Via The Houston Chronicle, we learn that House Government Reform Chair Henry Waxman wil investigate the report that Bush pioneer Stephen Payne offered meetings with top Bush administration officials in exchange for contributions to the Bush Library:

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, informed Payne late Monday that his panel would look into the report.

"If true, this raises serious concerns about the ways in which foreign interests might be secretly influencing large donations to the library," Waxman wrote in the letter to Payne.

Melanie Sloan provided some perspective to the Chronicle:

Even so, as as result of The Sunday Times report, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group, fired off a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking him to look into whether Payne violated federal laws that bar soliciting contributions in return for influencing government officials.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said that "it is not permissible to sell meetings with Bush administration officials."

Sloan also said that it is unlikely that Payne would have made the pitch without approval from others close to or within the administration.

"He wouldn't get paid that way if he couldn't deliver," she said.

Today, CREW sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation into whether lobbyist Stephen Payne violated any criminal laws by offering to arrange meetings with top administration officials in return for a contribution to the Bush library and a substantial commission for serving as a go-between, and whether any administration officials broke the law by participating in a scheme to sell meetings for contributions.  The letter to DOJ can be found here.

The Times of London has reported that a Times investigator asked Mr. Payne to arrange meetings in Washington for an exiled former central Asian president. Mr. Payne can be seen on videotape saying that such meetings can be arranged for “somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000, with about a third of it going directly to the Bush library.” The balance would go to Mr. Payne’s lobbying firm, Worldwide Strategic Partners. When asked which officials might be available to meet for that price, Mr. Payne replied, “Cheney’s possible, definitely the national security adviser [Stephen Hadley], definitely either Dr. Rice or . . . I think a meeting with Dr. Rice or the deputy secretary [John Negroponte] is possible . . .”

Mr. Payne is a top Bush donor who raised more than $100,000 for the 2000 presidential election and another $200,000 for the president’s 2004 re-election campaign. He is also a member of the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council and has accompanied President Bush and Vice President Cheney on foreign trips.

Federal law prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. If Mr. Payne was authorized by any member of the Bush administration to trade meetings with top level officials in return for financial contributions to the Bush library, those officials may have violated the bribery statute. Similarly, by offering to serve as a conduit to deliver contributions to the Bush library in exchange for meetings with administration officials, Mr. Payne may have violated federal law.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today:

It is clear from this week’s reporting that Mr. Payne is attempting to capitalize on his relationship with the President of the United States in a way that suggests United States foreign policy may be for sale to the highest bidder. Although the White House has denied any connection between official administration action and contributions to the library, considering Mr. Payne’s close ties to the White House, this simply is not credible. The Justice Department should immediately investigate if this administration is complicit in this or other contribution-for-meeting schemes with Mr. Payne.