Thursday, January 26, 2006

Photograph Company President that "scrubbed" Abramoff photo with Bush gave to Bush

Josh has a post in which he interviews the President of Reflections Photography on why their photos of Abramoff and Bush are no longer available. From his post:

But early this afternoon, I decided to take one more go at Reflections. I talked to company president Joanne Amos. We went back and forth over various questions about whether photographs at the site were available to the public and why some had been removed. When she, at length, asked me who it was in the picture with the president. I told her we believed it was Jack Abramoff.

Amos very straightforwardly told me that the photographs had been removed and that they had been removed because they showed Abramoff and the president in the same picture. The photos were, she told me, "not relevant."

When I asked her who had instructed her to remove the photos, she told me she was the president of the company. She did it. It was "her business decision" to remove the photographs. She told me she had done so within the last month.


Business decision. Yeah, I bet. Here's the real reason:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Amos gave $2,000 to Bush in 2003 and $2,000 to the RNC in 2004.

She's a Republican donor helping sweep this under the rug.

UPDATE: Yes, she's making a "business decision." But did anyone at the White House point out to Amos that it would be a good business decision to remove it?

UPDATE II: You know, normally it's the politicians doing the favors for the donors, not the other way around. But here's a donor who wants to keep her business with the White House, so she's doing them a favor. A big one. This certainly is a microcosm -- a mini one with the small money involved -- that speaks volumes about how this Abramoff scandal is a campaign finance one, not simply a lobbying one, and why Congress needs to take up serious real including Clean Elections-style public financing of elections.

UPDATE III: Okay, from commenter Earl below, courtesy of Fundrace.org, looks like a total of $4,000 to the RNC and $2,000 to the Bush campaign from Joanne Amos, and $4,150 to the RNC and $2,000 to the Bush campaign from Steven Amos, who I believe is Joanne's brother and business partner. (Earl had double counted some donations below, I think.) That's a total of $12,150 from the Amos/Reflections Photography family. Pretty soon, we'll be adding up to real money.

37 Comments:

  • Sounds like it was a good monkey business decision that came by royal decree from King Chimp.

    Kevin Schmidt, Sterling VA

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:19 PM  

  • It figures, doesn't it? That's probably why her company has the business with the White House.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the White House made it abundantly clear to her that removing the photo(s) would help to ensure that her company retained the White House business. Wink, wink. A business decision, indeed!

    By Blogger DrewL, at 3:20 PM  

  • It would seem a bad business decision from the purely capitalistic standpoint.
    Right now demand for the pics are probably at the highest they will ever be and she controls the supply. I don't hear any Ka-Ching.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:22 PM  

  • Gee, I wonder if it would be considered a good business decision now that the news is out? Wouldn't this be obstruction of justics if the photos were a part of a subpoena?

    By Blogger california_reality_check, at 3:23 PM  

  • I'm sure this is not the first time she has removed pictures, anyone remember Jeff Gannon?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:33 PM  

  • The phone number of the Photo agency is (800) 835-8201 if you would like to ask them any questions about their decision to censor the photos.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:41 PM  

  • I am not at all surprised the woman did this or that she is a Republican donor. This type of photography can be handled by almost anyone - kind of start-up photography. As someone said, I'm sure there's a reason she has the account.
    That said, you would do this for any celebrity and I'm sure discretion is part of their job.

    What is interesting is that they feel it is damning enough to remove. Is there any way of retrieving it from a cache or the internet archive/wayback machine? Now they've got us all curious.

    By Blogger jill bryant, at 3:47 PM  

  • She said that the photo was "not relevant". What I want to know is "not relevant to what?"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:48 PM  

  • This is my big question about all this "not relevant" stuff. If it's not relevant, what's the HARM in having it out there? By keeping it under wraps, the Adminstration is making it a whole lot MORE relevant.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:50 PM  

  • ► For anyone interested:
    http://www.reflectionsorders.com
    Http Daemon: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
    SMTP Daemon: Version: 6.0.3790.1830
    Possible trojan found on port 119
    Known trojans: Happy 99
    Services/Protocols Holes
    NNTP:119 is active: Hacker can use your server to anonymously read messages from or post messages to.


    - Cowicide iamtv.tv

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:55 PM  

  • "Not relevant" is the mantra the White House is repeating when describing the photos.

    The fact that she parrots it speaks volumes about her decision.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:07 PM  

  • Well, you gotta give 'em credit! Can you imagine if the shoes were reversed here and the president was a dem and the photog exec was a dem? It would probably work out a lot differently. Sadly.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:11 PM  

  • hey, this guy isn't abramoff, is he??

    http://snap1.brightroom.com/3745/3745-006-032f.jpg

    same guy is here:

    http://snap1.brightroom.com/3745/3745-006-022f.jpg

    and here:

    http://snap1.brightroom.com/3745/3745-006-025f.jpg

    By Anonymous el cabra guapo, at 4:12 PM  

  • I checked Amos' website shortly after reading TPM. I keyed "Abramoff Bush" into the search. Not surprisingly, no results.

    By Blogger Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, at 4:26 PM  

  • More than 2X $2,000:

    "Here:
    Name, Occupation, Employer Contribution Address
    Ms. Joanne Lee Amos

    Reflections Photography, Inc. RNC
    *$4,000* 3740 12th St S (map)
    Arlington, VA 22204

    MS. JOANNE AMOS
    PHOTOGRAPHER/BUSINESS OWNER
    REFLECTIONS PHOTOGRAPHY George W. Bush
    *$2,000* 3740 12th St SOUTH (map)
    ARLINGTON, VA 22204


    And here

    Name, Occupation, Employer
    Contribution
    Address
    Mr. Steven L Amos
    Owner/Photographer
    RNC
    *$4,150*
    1737 Johnson Ave N W (map)
    Washington, DC 20009
    Ms. Joanne Lee Amos

    Reflections Photography, Inc.
    RNC
    *$4,000*
    3740 12th St S (map)
    Arlington, VA 22204

    MS. JOANNE AMOS
    PHOTOGRAPHER/BUSINESS OWNER
    REFLECTIONS PHOTOGRAPHY
    George W. Bush
    *$2,000*
    3740 12th St SOUTH (map)
    ARLINGTON, VA 22204

    MR. STEVEN L AMOS
    PHOTOGRAPHER
    SELF-EMPLOYED
    George W. Bush
    *$2,000*
    1737 JOHNSON Ave N W (map)
    WASHINGTON, DC 20009"

    Earl

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:46 PM  

  • This is the internet! You're telling me NO ONE has a copy of this photo somewhere???

    :P

    By Blogger MoxieGrrrl, at 4:46 PM  

  • Don't forget, archieve.org has a nasty way of remembering things people want to forget. If you got the time to snoop around, maybe we'll find the picture. It sounds like it may be been sitting out on the internet for quiet a while.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:48 PM  

  • She said that the photo was "not relevant". What I want to know is "not relevant to what?"

    To her company keeping its job, natch.

    If they make archive CDs, and the masters have only just been purged, then those photos are out there. They may be online, in one form or another. But there are copies sitting in CD cases on people's desks right now.

    By Blogger pseudonymous in NC, at 5:06 PM  

  • Hey thanks for clearing up my math. I just did the same at DKos. Sorry bout that.

    Earl

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:11 PM  

  • have we not passed the point where ms. amos's actions might be considered destruction of evidence?

    and as per two different anons there, yeah maybe obstruction of justice (the guy after all IS an admitted felon, after all), and gosh, that word "irrelevant" sure has an echo, mm?

    el cabra guepo, that does not look like abramoff to me. sadly.

    By Anonymous lll, at 5:34 PM  

  • Well, we know someone has the photos, because Time magazine has seen them. Certainly Abramoff himself has copies. He probably showed them to Time. At some point, the photos will get out, right?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:08 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Glen, at 10:24 PM  

  • There's got to be more to this story. Everyone knows the photos exist. Are there photos of Bush kissing Abramoff or something?

    By Blogger Glen, at 10:27 PM  

  • As to the contributions thing, that is another can of corrupt worms.

    The way this works is that your basic bigtime executive is a major fundraiser because he makes all of his vendors overcharge him and contribute under his ledger. In other words, it's common that contributions don't really come out of the contributor's own pocket.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:54 PM  

  • I just wonder how much taxpayer money the White House has paid to her firm. I'm sure Reflections is a very good company and they earn every cent of our money, but just how much is it?

    Remember the Rendon Group? Didn't they get about $100 million for writing propaganda?

    By Blogger tsmith911, at 11:26 PM  

  • Deleting photos of Abramoff. Won't this make his daughter cry?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:34 PM  

  • If someone looked at the pictures and haven't "cleaned" their computers, they can still get it. It is stored on the hard drive unless you know how to remove it. Maybe someone looked at them before this became widely known. Anyone?

    By Blogger Larakatt, at 1:21 AM  

  • You know, I hate saying this, but I think the battle is over now. and we lost. Thanx Democrats.

    Tom, What we used to call the United States

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:29 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger The Raving Badger, at 9:31 AM  

  • Here's the real story:

    1. Abramoff was part of the transition team in '00.
    2. 1-9-00 Abramoff joins Greenberg Taurig, a firm that worked for the Bush Campaign on the FL recount contest.
    3. Then Greenberg Taurig forgives over 314K in atty's fees to the Bush Campaign for their work on the recount.

    See the real pay-to-play sytsem now?

    By Blogger The Raving Badger, at 9:33 AM  

  • IT JUST BIZNESS BABY
    DICE MAN

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:14 AM  

  • Who signs this lady's paycheck, the taxpayers or the RNC? If the former the photos are ours and she's stealing public property

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:14 AM  

  • Anonymous donor to offer $1 million for original prints of Bush and Abramhoff with certificate of authenticity from photographer.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:58 PM  

  • "It would seem a bad business decision from the purely capitalistic standpoint.
    Right now demand for the pics are probably at the highest they will ever be and she controls the supply. I don't hear any Ka-Ching."

    That's because the money is now moving under a table that is muffling the sound.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:43 AM  

  • CHIMPEACH !

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:15 PM  

  • 2006 THE YEAR OF THE CHIMPEACHMENT !!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:16 PM  

  • Check the WH phone records!! Any calls to Amos' company??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home