Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

[Gokul43201]

It may be a funny juxtaposition, but it is also completely meaningless.

The Bush administration had indeed abused power repeatedly and had been under investigation for several of these abuses/alleged abuses (any non-empty subset of: Justice Department firings, a million or so missing emails, a million or so emails sent through alternate sources like private or RNC addresses, CIA leaks, Abramoff and the GSA, Warrantless wiretaps, Cheney's meeting with the Energy Task Force, Internal Department throwing cocaine parties with Energy sector execs, ...). And at least some of these were common knowledge at the time the first copy of the statement about abuse and subpoenas was made in this thread.

Has the Obama Administration come under investigation for any abuses that would require access to the visitor logs? There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

 

[Al68]

There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

The so-called abuse I was referring was:

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-

and plagiarizing once again: Here's the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

It's the same so-called abuse as in the post Ivan responded to. And that you responded to:

I would say that each incident constitutes a betrayal of confidence. And each act of betrayal deserves condemnation.

So as soon as you post more evidence of the "incident" you were referring to, I'll just plagiarize it.

 

[drankin]

It's ok if Obamo doesn't allow the list but not the former administration. And many of his supporters defend this action. Contrary to the "transparency" we are expecting. Come on people. This is obvious hypocricy.

 

[LowlyPion]

It's the same so-called abuse as in the post Ivan responded to.

Actually it's not the same abuse. Your understanding of the issue looks deficient. You are confusing Cheney's hiding his activities, that may apparently well have been an abuse and malfeasance of office, a matter to be determined by the courts, behind the claim of a privilege for the logs that is not per se the prerogative of the Executive Branch to entertain in order to shield abuse of office.

The abuse at issue then is not the public access to Visitor Logs. What abuse is that? But rather the abuse that was at the heart of what Cheney was seeking to hide, a matter that the court was investigating.

To suggest now then that Obama is engaging in some abuse of power, that he is seeking to hide by not immediately releasing the Visitor Logs, is at best disingenuous. There is no claim that I am aware of that suggests that Obama has engaged in any abuse at all. And certainly none that any Visitor's Log might enlighten. Retaining the Visitor Logs is not itself an abuse as you may want to project. So if your intent is to seek refuge in a parrot defense, what you have parroted is something that simply does not apply in the way that it was initially directed. Clumsy like Letterman is my take on your claim.

 

[Gokul43201]

The so-called abuse I was referring was:

[blah]

It's the same so-called abuse as in the post Ivan responded to.

But is it the same abuse that Ivan originally referred to in his first post in the thread (the one you plagiarized)? I interpreted that post as referring to all the other abuses which were under investigation (such as the ones I listed in my previous post) that Bush was trying to shield from scrutiny by holding back the visitor logs. I could have got that wrong.

And that you responded to:So as soon as you post more evidence of the "incident" you were referring to, I'll just plagiarize it.

Well, that's not the "abuse" quote you used in your plagiarism so it's irrelevant to the discussion. And being cute doesn't help your argument either.

I consider both Bush's and Obama's refusal to release visitor logs as illegal and unethical but that opinion has nothing to do with what Ivan was talking about in his first post (perhaps he could clarify).

 

[Gokul43201]

Contrary to the "transparency" we are expecting.

Speaking of the transparency that you are now expecting but never demanded of the previous administration (did someone mention 'hypocrisy'?), here's a report card:

Today, the Brennan Center for Justice releases a new report card evaluating President Obama's record of transparency in national security matters during his first 100 days in office.

"There's a clear pattern here," says Elizabeth Goitein, Director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Project. "In most areas, the President has honored his pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration. But that commitment seems far weaker in cases where accountability is sought for government misconduct."

"President Obama's record of transparency is overall a tremendous improvement over President Bush's record," Goitein adds. "In the areas of open government and access to presidential records, he has put excellent policies in place; what's needed now is faithful implementation, particularly when it comes to national security issues. He has also made important strides in reducing the executive branch's reliance on secret law.

"But in cases where people seek accountability for government misconduct—whether through the courts, Congress, or an independent commission—the administration doesn't show the same instinct for openness. This is troublesome, because facing up to the mistakes of the past and learning from those mistakes is a critical part of moving forward and restoring the rule of law."

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/on_transparency_obama_succeeds_and_disappoints_in_first_100_days/

 

[mheslep]

It may be a funny juxtaposition, but it is also completely meaningless.

The Bush administration had indeed abused power repeatedly and had been under investigation for several of these abuses/alleged abuses (any non-empty subset of: Justice Department firings, a million or so missing emails, a million or so emails sent through alternate sources like private or RNC addresses, CIA leaks, Abramoff and the GSA, Warrantless wiretaps, Cheney's meeting with the Energy Task Force, Internal Department throwing cocaine parties with Energy sector execs, ...). And at least some of these were common knowledge at the time the first copy of the statement about abuse and subpoenas was made in this thread.

Has the Obama Administration come under investigation for any abuses that would require access to the visitor logs? There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

What are you talking about given the topic of comparisons in 'abuses of power'? You may not like that Chevy met w/ energy execs, but how is that remotely an abuse of power? Regards the other points, as far as I can tell Obama has maintained almost the exact same policy with warrantless wire taps. Did you believe differently when you made the above post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032403501.html
As of yesterday there was the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin because he was after the now (D)Mayor of Sacremento for earlier misuse of federal funds, given 1 hour to clear out in blatant violation of the new IG law which requires a 30 day notification congress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Firing-AmeriCorps-IG-an-act-of-political-courage-48538447.html

 

[mheslep]

Speaking of the transparency that you are now expecting but never demanded of the previous administration (did someone mention 'hypocrisy'?), here's a report card:



http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/on_transparency_obama_succeeds_and_disappoints_in_first_100_days/

A big part of that report card grades how well the current administration is doing in releasing information about actions of the previous administration. That, the lack of comment on the administration's most significant action so far - the stimulus, and the fact that it's a hundred days, makes this a silly accounting.

 

[Gokul43201]

What are you talking about given the topic of comparisons in 'abuses of power'? You may not like that Chevy met w/ energy execs, but how is that remotely an abuse of power? Regards the other points, as far as I can tell Obama has maintained almost the exact same policy with warrantless wire taps. Did you believe differently when you made the above post?

You can take out a few more from that list and still have enough remaining on the plate to feed a village starving of abuse! ;)

That Obama hasn't changed Bush's wiretapping policy is moot - Congress has already legalized it. About the Cheney meeting with Energy Execs, I thought there was some kind of Federal or Congressional investigation into that, but I didn't take the time to check so am willing to throw that out of the list.

As of yesterday there was the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin because he was after the now (D)Mayor of Sacremento for earlier misuse of federal funds, given 1 hour to clear out in blatant violation of the new IG law which requires a 30 day notification congress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Firing-AmeriCorps-IG-an-act-of-political-courage-48538447.html

Yet to read this story, but if it is only as of yesterday, then it doesn't have any effect on the post Ivan made.

 

[Gokul43201]

A big part of that report card grades how well the current administration is doing in releasing information about actions of the previous administration. That, the lack of comment on the administration's most significant action so far - the stimulus, and the fact that it's a hundred days, makes this a silly accounting.

Feel free to ignore those parts of it that are related to the previous administration. There's still a lot of meat there after that. And that was the only report I found on transparency in the new administration (other than one by written or commissioned by Feingold, which I haven't looked at). If you have something more recent, please post, but hey, we're hardly even at two hundred days so far (so I don't see that that would hugely reduce the silliness factor). And out of curiosity: do you believe there was greater transparency with the previous administration?

 

[drankin]

Feel free to ignore those parts of it that are related to the previous administration. There's still a lot of meat there after that. And that was the only report I found on transparency in the new administration (other than one by written or commissioned by Feingold, which I haven't looked at). If you have something more recent, please post, but hey, we're hardly even at two hundred days so far. And out of curiosity: do you believe there was greater transparency with the previous administration?

I think the point is that Obama promised to more transparency. The previous administration did not promise this. Whether they had more or less transparency is not the issue. The issue is that the visitor log is NOW unavailable.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think the point is that Obama promised to more transparency. The previous administration did not promise this. Whether they had more or less transparency is not the issue. The issue is that the visitor log is NOW unavailable.

Actually the visitor log is still unavailable, I think is the operative view. The position simply hasn't yet changed from the previous administration's position on the issue, which unfortunately became a public discussion, because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log. A dramatically different position than the current administration merely continuing to assert a privilege. Cheney could have avoided the whole thing by making those records voluntarily available. But that would have been very un-Cheney like.

 

[mheslep]

...And out of curiosity: do you believe there was greater transparency with the previous administration?

Two points. First, until more time passes and a few more embarrassing incidents occur as they do to all human endeavors and we see how the administration handles them, then we can't really say yet, or at least I would not. So far we have the stimulus hanging out there with the VP stating he expected malfeasance - I want to see reporting on that. Second, Bush made mistakes, but there's also much trumped up outrage, the lack of true conviction on which is illustrated by the ho hum when Obama takes the same actions, not nearly the same, but in same cases exactly the same. This nonsense is a case in point:

Actually the visitor log is still unavailable, I think is the operative view. The position simply hasn't yet changed from the previous administration's position on the issue, which unfortunately became a public discussion, because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log. A dramatically different position than the current administration merely continuing to assert a privilege.

Please

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the point is that Obama promised to more transparency. The previous administration did not promise this.

(emphasis mine) In that case, the only question to address is whether or not Obama is keeping his promise by delivering more transparency than the previous administration.

Whether they had more or less transparency is not the issue.

You've just contradicted yourself.

 

[Gokul43201]

Two points. First, until more time passes and a few more embarrassing incidents occur as they do to all human endeavors and we see how the administration handles them, then we can't really say yet, or at least I would not.

Fair enough. And I mostly agree. I think it is similarly meaningless to compare deficit growth under (a few months of) Obama vs. deficit growth under (several years of) Bush. So rather than comparing entire bodies of work (since there isn't yet a "body" to speak of), we ought to really only stick to individual cases.

So far we have the stimulus hanging out there with the VP stating he expected malfeasance - I want to see reporting on that.

Not aware of this story.

Second, Bush made mistakes, but there's also much trumped up outrage, the lack of true conviction on which is illustrated by the ho hum when Obama takes the same actions, not nearly the same, but in same cases exactly the same.

I'd say there's a bunch hypocrisy on the other side as well, blasting Obama for actions that Bush was lauded or at least excused for. I think this just a fundamental aspect of garden variety partisanship, and often it may not even be a conscious thing.

 

[mheslep]

..Not aware of this story. ...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged on Tuesday that some waste is inevitable in the spending of a $787 billion economic stimulus package, in a characteristically blunt assessment.

"We know some of this money is going to be wasted," Biden said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5516HE20090602
Which is fine, the trick is on following up on that inevitability.

 

[bleedblue1234]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sr0zXsTcfwg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sr0zXsTcfwg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Al68]

Actually it's not the same abuse. Your understanding of the issue looks deficient. You are confusing Cheney's hiding his activities, that may apparently well have been an abuse and malfeasance of office, a matter to be determined by the courts, behind the claim of a privilege for the logs that is not per se the prerogative of the Executive Branch to entertain in order to shield abuse of office.

The abuse at issue then is not the public access to Visitor Logs. What abuse is that? But rather the abuse that was at the heart of what Cheney was seeking to hide, a matter that the court was investigating.

To suggest now then that Obama is engaging in some abuse of power, that he is seeking to hide by not immediately releasing the Visitor Logs, is at best disingenuous. There is no claim that I am aware of that suggests that Obama has engaged in any abuse at all. And certainly none that any Visitor's Log might enlighten. Retaining the Visitor Logs is not itself an abuse as you may want to project. So if your intent is to seek refuge in a parrot defense, what you have parroted is something that simply does not apply in the way that it was initially directed. Clumsy like Letterman is my take on your claim.

The only issue I referred to was failure to publish the visitors log. That was the only issue mentioned in the OP, and the topic of the thread.

Are you claiming that Ivan violated the forum rules by ambiguously referring to unspecific abuses alleged in other posts instead of the only thing mentioned in the post he responded to, and the topic of the thread?

And that I should assume he wasn't referring to the topic of the post he responded to?

I think most on this forum know exactly what happened here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you claiming that Ivan violated the forum rules by ambiguously referring to unspecific abuses alleged in other posts instead of the only thing mentioned in the post he responded to, and the topic of the thread?

It really doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that Ivan may have been referring to other abuses under investigation that were being blocked access to by refusing to release visitor logs. Duh!

 

[CRGreathouse]

It really doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that Ivan may have been referring to other abuses under investigation that were being blocked access to by refusing to release visitor logs. Duh!

Are you accusing Ivan of breaking forum rules?

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you accusing Ivan of breaking forum rules?

No. As I said before, I interpreted Ivan's post as a reaction to the refusal to release visitor logs, which inhibits/hinders the investigation of abuses.

I don't see what specific rules this would be breaking.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The abuse at issue then is not the public access to Visitor Logs. What abuse is that? But rather the abuse that was at the heart of what Cheney was seeking to hide, a matter that the court was investigating.

It was very likely a matter of advice from his lawyer. The last thing you want or need while being investigated on criminal charges is for the prosecution to have unlimited access to information on you because it is supposed to be a matter of public record. Anyone being investigated has the right to have only relevant information presented against them which is the point of the subpoena process. Even child molestors have this right. Its a prudent legal move. Making it seem unethical is just rediculous. Those investigating him only wanted to have unfettered access to said information so Cheney's defense would not necessarily be aware of what may or may not be brought up against him and be unsure of what to prepare for. Going through a subpoena process means that hopefully they will only have access to certain relevant information and a defense can be prepared.
Unless it is illegal to make this information private there is no wrong doing.

 

[Al68]

It really doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that Ivan may have been referring to other abuses under investigation that were being blocked access to by refusing to release visitor logs. Duh!

And it doesn't take a brilliant mind to be a master of the obvious, either. Duh!

 

[signerror]

...because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log. A dramatically different position than the current administration merely continuing to assert a privilege.

What a pathological double standard.

 

[signerror]

Has the Obama Administration come under investigation for any abuses that would require access to the visitor logs? There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

I think this is inaccurate. You are treating this like a criminal search warrant, where the defendant is a private citizen whose civil rights are vulnerable, and the prosecutor must show probable cause. But these aren't citizens under scrutiny, but the public offices of the United States. Who Obama meets with in the Oval Office is not a private matter (unless he's screwing interns); it is a duty of public office, and matter of supreme public interest.

Federal courts agree:

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. ...These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house

In my opinion, elected officials on the job don't have a right to privacy, nor even a presumption of innocence. The moral hazards are extreme, and the record of corruption blatant. Public officials SHOULD have their actions closely scrutinized, so that the public can VERIFY they are not corrupt, instead of relying on blind trust. I don't give them the benefit of doubt, any more than a CEO gives their employees the benefit of doubt - but rather reviews, audits their work, hires accountants to watch for malfeasance - and so I should demand the same oversight on employees of the public.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think this is inaccurate. You are treating this like a criminal search warrant, where the defendant is a private citizen whose civil rights are vulnerable, and the prosecutor must show probable cause. But these aren't citizens under scrutiny, but the public offices of the United States. Who Obama meets with in the Oval Office is not a private matter (unless he's screwing interns); it is a duty of public office, and matter of supreme public interest.

You've misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that the public has the burden of showing probable cause for subpoenaing the visitor logs (TSA said something like that though). I do not disagree with the federal ruling requiring public access to the visitor logs and I hold Obama as guilty as I held Bush for blocking access (see my posts #12 & #22). But this has nothing to do with the argument I was making above.

 

[chemisttree]

You've misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that the public has the burden of showing probable cause for subpoenaing the visitor logs (TSA said something like that though).

You should be more precise with your use of the word "subpoenaing". The public can't subpoena anything. Courts do that. What is at issue is the release of the visitor logs as a result of a freedom of information act request. That's very different than a subpoena as Ivan pointed out.

I do not disagree with the federal ruling requiring public access to the visitor logs and I hold Obama as guilty as I held Bush for blocking access (see my posts #12 & #22). But this has nothing to do with the argument I was making above.

You think the judge ruled fairly?

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the government's secrecy arguments and ordered the Secret Service to turn over the records to a liberal watchdog group that sought them through a public records.


The logs being sought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington relate to White House visits regarding nine conservative religious commentators, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell.

You think idealogues should have the right to know the coming and goings of anyone that visits the White House. And what will be done with that information? Investigate abuses?

Please...

 

[signerror]

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the government's secrecy arguments and ordered the Secret Service to turn over the records to a liberal watchdog group that sought them through a public records. The logs being sought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington relate to White House visits regarding nine conservative religious commentators, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell.

You think idealogues should have the right to know the coming and goings of anyone that visits the White House. And what will be done with that information? Investigate abuses?

Please...

I think everyone has the right to know the functioning of public government, including "ideologues". I think it's amusing that you apparently claim the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to people with political affiliations. Or for that matter, suggest that the important issue here isn't the right of citizens to hold their government accountable, but the right of elected officials to defend their political agenda by withholding information from their partisan rivals.

 

[mheslep]

I think everyone has the right to know the functioning of public government, including "ideologues". I think it's amusing that you apparently claim the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to people with political affiliations. Or for that matter, suggest that the important issue here isn't the right of citizens to hold their government accountable, but the right of elected officials to defend their political agenda by withholding information from their partisan rivals.

The executive has to be able to have private meetings to operate effectively, and I don't just mean for classified national security information.

 

[seycyrus]

Having just recently completed my security awareness training, I can understand the need to screen the visitor log of the POTUS.

I also note the ridiculous double standard.

 

[Al68]

because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log.

Would this be one of those "deliberately false statements? Any evidence that Cheney made that argument?

 

[chemisttree]

I think everyone has the right to know the functioning of public government, including "ideologues". I think it's amusing that you apparently claim the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to people with political affiliations. Or for that matter, suggest that the important issue here isn't the right of citizens to hold their government accountable, but the right of elected officials to defend their political agenda by withholding information from their partisan rivals.

And yet there are http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/412/412.F3d.125.04-5206.04-5205.04-5204.html"

The act itself contains 9 categories of exemptions. None really apply to the CREW case (visitor logs of nine religious conservative commentators) but executive privilege does protect advice and council both from within the White House and from those outside the White House. This district judge weighed executive privilege against the basic goals of the Freedom of Information Act and executive privilege in this case was found wanting. None of the 9 categories of exemptions applied; but, was the judge fair? Will this ruling be overturned on appeal by the Obama administration? I certainly hope so.