Obama declares White House no longer subject to Freedom of Information Act

[rudeguy]

I'm sorry I thought when the OP was whining about the administration saying the law didn't apply to them he was implying it was illegal.

How about having Congress change the law?

I'm not mad at the law. I'm mad about the lies.

 

[Subyman]

The example this sets, is that one should shoot to get away with as much as legally possible.

This is how I view Obama, and Hillary. People that try and get away with as much as legally possible.

If this is what you think America is all about, I feel sorry for you.

If this is the lesson you want your sons and daughters to learn, I feel sorry for you.

-John

That is a good point. Aspiring to be at the borderline of what's legal versus what is right by the American people is not good policy.

 

[nickqt]

Yes, KingObama™ is taking away all our freedoms. Because outrage.

Also: Benghazi.

Here is the relevant part of the article. I know, it doesn't enrage me as much as OP's description of KingObama's™ latest tyranny, but oh well, there will be something else we can become enraged at tomorrow.

Also: Benghazi.

Unlike other offices within the White House, which were always exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, the Office of Administration responded to FOIA requests for 30 years. Until the Obama administration, watchdog groups on the left and the right used records from the office to shed light on how the White House works.

"This is an office that operated under the FOIA for 30 years, and when it became politically inconvenient, they decided they weren't subject to the Freedom of Information Act any more," said Tom Fitton of the conservative Judicial Watch.

That happened late in the Bush administration, when CREW sued over e-mails deleted by the White House — as many as 22 million of them, by one accounting. The White House at first began to comply with that request, but then reversed course.

"The government made an argument in an effort to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the lawsuit in order to stop the archiving of White House e-mails," said Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has used similar requests to shed light on foreign policy decisions.


USA TODAY
New players join newspapers in using FOIA requests

In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA, "because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority."

The appeals court ruled that the White House was required to archive the e-mails, but not release them under the FOIA. Instead, White House e-mails must be released under the Presidential Records Act — but not until at least five years after the end of the administration.

In a notice to be published in Tuesday's Federal Register, the White House says it's removing regulations on how the Office of Administration complies with Freedom of Information Act Requests based on "well-settled legal interpretations."

The rule change means that there will no longer be a formal process for the public to request that the White House voluntarily disclose records as part of what's known as a "discretionary disclosure." Records released by the Office of Administration voluntarily include White House visitor logs and the recipe for beer brewed at the White House.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not mad at the law. I'm mad about the lies.

Fair enough, but if you want consistency the law is going to have be changed. FOIA is so we can as citizens get access to information to hold the government accountable. In this case if there is a gap in the law that unnecessarily limits access to that information than the law should be changed.

BTW I'm not saying I agree with the administration's position.

 

[brycejones]

The example this sets, is that one should shoot to get away with as much as legally possible.

This is how I view Obama, and Hillary. People that try and get away with as much as legally possible.

If this is what you think America is all about, I feel sorry for you.

If this is the lesson you want your sons and daughters to learn, I feel sorry for you.

-John

I agree with you, but you need to extend your view to just about every politician at the national level.

 

[Zorkorist]

You agree that it is wrong, yet you say everyone in politics acts this way?

Maybe we need a big change? Maybe we need to limit politicians and Government greatly?

For sure stop their spending money they don't have. A balanced budget amendment.

That would be a good first step?

-John

 

[schmuckley]

wat?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

umm,no.
If he did this in any kind of official way;That is grounds for impeachment.

 

[Moonbeam]

You agree that it is wrong, yet you say everyone in politics acts this way?

Maybe we need a big change? Maybe we need to limit politicians and Government greatly?

For sure stop their spending money they don't have. A balanced budget amendment.

That would be a good first step?

-John

Bad idea, like wearing cement shoes on a flood plane.

 

[Zorkorist]

The only way that taking proactive steps to limit Government is a bad idea, is when one has given up, and wants to run Government into the ground.

-John

 

[Genx87]

There is that most transparent administration in history at it again.

 

[werepossum]

Meh. This is power. Power is no longer accountable except to itself. Any politician promising to be transparent is merely giving his or her shills something to say before they say "everybody does it."

As far as having Congress change the law, look at immigration law. Even among the unaccountable, Obama stands out.

 

[zinfamous]

In other news, Obama replaces the vintage lead glass windows of the White House with frosted glass. So much for transparency.

 

[brycejones]

You agree that it is wrong, yet you say everyone in politics acts this way?

Maybe we need a big change? Maybe we need to limit politicians and Government greatly?

For sure stop their spending money they don't have. A balanced budget amendment.

That would be a good first step?

-John

1. Yes
2. Yes- Notice I advocate changing the law to make it apply. I'm sure we have different ideas of what "greatly" is though.
3. No, bad idea and this isn't a thread about the budget or economics.

 

[Zorkorist]

Meh. This is power. Power is no longer accountable except to itself. Any politician promising to be transparent is merely giving his or her shills something to say before they say "everybody does it."

As far as having Congress change the law, look at immigration law. Even among the unaccountable, Obama stands out.

Meh. You can't have it both ways.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

Meh. This is power. Power is no longer accountable except to itself. Any politician promising to be transparent is merely giving his or her shills something to say before they say "everybody does it."

As far as having Congress change the law, look at immigration law. Even among the unaccountable, Obama stands out.

I'm curious in what ways does obama stand out with regards to immigration?

 

[werepossum]

In other news, Obama replaces the vintage lead glass windows of the White House with frosted glass. So much for transparency.

If you could still see in, you'd see I have the most transparent administration in history.

Meh. You can't have it both ways.

-John

Sure I can. Obama is acting badly. His predecessor acted badly. His successor will act badly. His two would-be successors would have acted badly. It's become a part of power, sadly, and legislation isn't going to change it.

I don't mind being the guy who looks down on the Katrina looters and says "Looting is bad, m'kay?" I don't want to be the guy who looks down on the Katrina looters and says "That guy with the TV - not, not THAT guy with the TV. No, not THAT guy with the TV either. THAT guy with the TV. Next to that other guy with the TV. Yeah, that one! He's looting!"

 

[werepossum]

I'm curious in what ways does obama stand out with regards to immigration?

By taking people the law says are to be arrested and deported, and instead giving them special treatment and taxpayer money. Not by changing the law, which he has said many times he hadn't the power to do, but by simply doing the opposite. No one act has so underlined our move from a system of laws to a system of men's wills.

 

[thraashman]

So, from all information available, it sounds like Obama literally did nothing. Nothing really changed from the way it has been for years, since before he even became President. It's like he changed from lacing up his left shoe first to his right shoe first and everyone is screaming he hates lefties. But the end result is his shoes are both still tied.

Also, there's a National Freedom of Information Day? What the actual fuck?

 

[ivwshane]

By taking people the law says are to be arrested and deported, and instead giving them special treatment and taxpayer money. Not by changing the law, which he has said many times he hadn't the power to do, but by simply doing the opposite. No one act has so underlined our move from a system of laws to a system of men's wills.

No, your claim was that he stands above all previous presidents in his actions, nothing he's done hasn't already been done.

So I'll ask again, in what ways does obama stand out with regards to immigration?

 

[Subyman]

Also, there's a National Freedom of Information Day? What the actual fuck?

That's the day the NSA calls in all the data they collected on your iPhone and stores it on their servers. Its a government holiday, except for the NSA, all hands on deck to go through their neighbor's pictures.

 

[Meghan54]

It's pretty much a truism that once a govt. gains a power, it rarely if ever relinquishes said power.

Not surprising to see this policy continue given it was already entrenched. Sad to see it wasn't abandoned, but not surprised.

 

[rudeguy]

wat?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

umm,no.
If he did this in any kind of official way;That is grounds for impeachment.

On what grounds?

 

[FerrelGeek]

It's pretty much a truism that once a govt. gains a power, it rarely if ever relinquishes said power.

Not surprising to see this policy continue given it was already entrenched. Sad to see it wasn't abandoned, but not surprised.

Pretty much this. Even if congress manages to get the law amended, I doubt Obama would sign it. It's a moot point as I doubt Reid will let it get by the Senate.

As to your first statement, this is why there are so many that want a smaller, less intrusive government. The only way to limit the potential for corruption and overstepping authority is to limit the size and scope of the government - irrespective of who is in charge of said government.

 

[PokerGuy]

Every president promises that.

You are a deeply stupid individual.

No. Every president makes promises, but this particular one ran on a platform of hope and change with clear openness and transparency as it's hallmark. In fact, obummer not only promised that numerous times during his campaigns, he continues to claim that his administration is "the most transparent administration ever".

Saying "well, it's just bad as the guys before him" doesn't work when he claims to be different and better than all the guys before him.

Typical hypocrite scumbag.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is that most transparent administration in history at it again.

Yep, another clear example of how open and transparent this administration is.