Liberal Watchdog Questions White House Gmail Use 283
MexiCali59 writes "Liberal watchdog CREW has joined Republican Congressman Darrell Issa in calling for an investigation into whether White House staffers regularly use private email accounts to communicate with lobbyists. The allegations, first reported last week by the New York Times, would likely constitute a violation of federal law as well as an ethics pledge created by Obama upon taking office last year."
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Informative)
I thought this was how every politician operated? Palin, The previous white house, etc, all used non-government assigned email addresses to avoid archiving and disclosure laws.
--jeffk++
Wasn't Palin's email full of personal stuff and not full of emails from lobbyists and the like offering bribes?
There's nothing forbidding politicians and their staffers from having personal email accounts. However, it is illegal to use them for official, government business as is being alleged here.
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Informative)
Since the law expressly allows federal employees at that level to remain involved with the political process, so long as they don't use public resources to do so, I don't see how they can function without having a separate e-mail account just as they have a separate cell phone. The only legal issue is whether they are using that separate e-mail account properly for political business, or whether they are improperly using it to conduct official government business, which would be a violation of the law for circumventing the archiving and disclosure laws.
And yes, I took the same position with the last President as I do with this one, even though I really don't care for the current President.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Informative)
If you like your health insurance, you can keep it? Umm, no
This one is amusing, by the way. It is technically true. However if you change any single feature, ZING, you're under the new law. Good luck outlasting that medical price inflation for more than a few years...
I give up (Score:5, Informative)
This administration has been terrible. All this promise, and then failure. And now there is news that the voter intimidation case got dropped for political reasons? I mean, there the guy is, holding a baton.....seriously, WTF.
Using Gmail should not be allowed. Government officials need to have ALL their activities OPENED to us, the people, unless it is personal stuff. This stuff is NOT personal, it is skirting the law. I don't care if PREVIOUS administrations did it or not. I don't care. Obama promised to do things DIFFERENTLY and I see nothing but business as usual if not more of an orgy type atmosphere there since they have a hold on both houses as well right now.
Not surprised, and not in a cynical way (Score:3, Informative)
To me this is just another example of how much people will try to cling to old ways of doing things and subvert rules that prevent it.
According to the NYTimes article referenced in TFA that kicked off this whole discussion, indicates that the administration has a policy of posting all White House visits and pressures staff to minimize contact with lobbyists. In response, rather than obey the spirit of those directives, the staff instead meets with lobbyists off the record.
This is a story older than government, going back to whenever a parent first told their kids not to do something or earlier: someone makes a rule, people impacted by that rule try to find a loophole, the rule is revised, repeat. Government is an inherently iterative process.
That being said, if doing an investigation speeds up this iteration of the feedback loop, I'm all for it.
Re:define lobbyist... (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, you have to register as a federal lobbyist, the Lobbying Disclosure Act and Honest Leadership and Open Government Act cover this. There isn't any vague area here.
Once you get into a public trust position you are expected to keep your contact with certain people, like lobbyists and contractors, strictly professional. If you have a personal relationship with someone you have to work with in this capacity it will be a problem and you will be expected to break it off or quit your position. There are rules outlining everything from gifts to phone calls. There isn't any room to maneuver here with the "yeah but what about the grandmom that gave us $100" defense. This isn't about her. This is about your "friend" over at Big Oil telling you to keep cameras off the beach in Pensacola because it might look bad, etc. A legit need for oversight.
Actually, yeah, he has. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:3, Informative)
But Palin and Co. were using their emails for business purposes (even if it was more day-to-day stuff, so far as the snoop caught).
I'm not saying your wrong here, but I just checked the images of the emails from way back when and the only thing I could see that even comes close to government business was a letter entitled something along the lines of "Draft Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger / Container Tax", which may or may not have dealt with the business of running Alaska. It could have contained something along the lines of "Dear Arnold, as a citizen of Alaska, I find your container tax to be pure BS!" Who knows. Either way, that's hardly proof of any laws being broken.
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn't Palin's email full of personal stuff and not full of emails from lobbyists and the like offering bribes?
It's illegal in all 50 states to conduct state business on a Yahoo account: [adn.com]
In response to similar but separate public records requests, McLeod and Henning this summer received four banker boxes of e-mail and telephone records for two Palin aides: Frank Bailey and Ivy Frye. Henning was operating on behalf of the Valley group Last Frontier Foundation, which lists property rights and public records as among its core issues on its Web site.
"I think that it's total hypocrisy from what she stood for at the beginning of her campaign," Henning said. "Because she campaigned on open government, and she knew that using a private e-mail account would take it and basically hide stuff that people couldn't see."
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.
"Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.
The state public records law says these are public documents like any other official government business conducted via snail mail. They are subject to public review via FOI requests, but they're not being kept in any kind of public archive. Asking Palin to surrender and not delete all her relevant Yahoo correspondence on the honor system is pointless.
Todd Palin [adn.com] had an account used for some interesting state business as well.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Informative)
"Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no"
He tried, the Republicans shut him down.
Anybody who claims that the President/Senate/House “tried” to do something but the Republicans “shut them down” is being downright dishonest.
With their huge majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats can do anything they damn well please if only they could get all their fellow Democrats onto the party bus. The moderate Democrats are the ones who shot it down.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Informative)
"Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no"
He tried, the Republicans shut him down.
Umm, thats a complete Executive Branch decision there so unless the Republicans somehow took control of the Presidency and then gave it back to Obama, that doesn't work.
'"There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and supports the Illinois plan. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.
And Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who also supports shutting it, said the effort is “on life support and it’s unlikely to close any time soon.” He attributed the collapse to some fellow Republicans’ “demagoguery” and the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.
But Mr. Levin portrayed the administration as unwilling to make a serious effort to exert its influence, contrasting its muted response to legislative hurdles to closing Guantánamo with “very vocal” threats to veto financing for a fighter jet engine it opposes.
Last year, for example, the administration stood aside as lawmakers restricted the transfer of detainees into the United States except for prosecution. And its response was silence several weeks ago, Mr. Levin said.”'
The leading Democrat on SASC won't put blame on the Republicans and puts blame squarely on the White House.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
So?? So???
There's no triviality here. You could keep your old plan, yes, but the changes that the bill causes would make that a colossally stupid move. The implicit promise was that you could keep your FREEDOM to choose a plan you liked. This is decidedly not the case, because your current rate and benefits aren't going to keep you happy for very long. Again, due to the inflation we're inevitably about to see.
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:2, Informative)
Alaska was and is a bit more liberal with email rules in the Government.
I work for the Alaska government in a quasi-state agency and we've never even been issued an acceptable use policy document for the Internet.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
I think the implication is that the situation doesn't change for you. If your employer switches health plans under the previous system, you were screwed too. Nothing got worse.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. PolitiFact has what they call an Obamameter [politifact.com], which tracks promises Obama made while campaigning. I realize it's fun to point to specific things you don't like and say that Obama has kept no promises, but that's dishonest.
You can argue that on some large issues, Obama has backtracked (such as his apparent desire to continue the ridiculous power grab of the executive during the Bush administration), but don't lie and say Obama has kept no promises. You look better (at least to those who don't already agree with you) if you're willing to be reasonable.
Disclaimers should not be necessary for posts like this, but since irrationality always pops up on political threads:
I voted for Obama in 2008, but only because I wanted McCain to be crushed after his ridiculous choice of VP candidate.
I will vote for Obama in 2012 only if the Republicans put a Palin-like character on the ticket. I've been unhappy with some of Obama's decisions.
I am not a Democratic/Obama apologist. To the people who believe that if you approve of anything a politician does, you approve of everything he does, you need to do a better job of understanding how the world works.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Informative)
No matter what Dubya did or said, the President *cannot* waive it away with an Prez Order. Legally speaking anyway.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like their filibuster of the health care reform bill? Or the jobs bill? Or the appointment of Patricia Smith?
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
To take almost any substantive action in the Senate requires sufficient votes to invoke cloture against a filibuster, i.e., 60 votes.
There are 58 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate (56 of whom are actually Democrats, 2 of whom are independents who caucus with the Democrats.) Depending on the sense in which the word "Democrats" (specifically, whether you refer to the party proper or the caucus) is used, that puts them either 2 or 4 votes shy of being able to take substantive action in the Senate without Republican support, even if every single Democrat is in favor.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:1, Informative)
How the fuck was this modded informative? Apparently, the poster has never heard of the term "filibuster" and how the Republicans are abusing the hell out of it:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:3, Informative)
Push for major election reforms then we'll talk. In the system we're stuck with voting 3rd party is not in your best interest. While you make your statement and maybe feel good about your vote, of the two candidates who actually stand a chance the one you dislike the most gets one more vote closer to winning.
Of course this only applies to the few voters in swing states. Everyone else can vote for whatever, it doesn't make a difference either way.
Re:I give up (Score:3, Informative)
This administration has been terrible. All this promise, and then failure.
That may be a small amount of hyperbole. The Obameter [politifact.com] rates Obama still as having fulfilled more of his campaign promise than those he's broken or stalled on. Which isn't to say that "coming through on half the things you promise" is good enough (nor are all promises created equal), but I wouldn't call it failure.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:1, Informative)
... here's one he can't wriggle out of by blaming Bush: ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
All he has to do is sign an executive order. That's it. Nothing else. Doesn't need Congress's approval, doesn't need the help of anyone else in the Executive branch. He just needs to write the order and sign it.
Still hasn't done it.
There's no way you can blame that one on Bush.
First off, because of the way DADT was enacted, it's not as easy as issuing a presidential order to reverse it. Since the initial Defense Directive which put DADT into practice, laws have been written around it, Also, Obama has called for an end to DADT ...
From Wikipedia: On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment[1] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness.[2][3]
Re:Pledge? (Score:5, Informative)
That is exactly the problem in Government right now. These HUGE bills that no one knows what they contain.
Only because they don't appear to know how to use THOMAS [loc.gov], where activity up to floor actions from the day before are available. It's the web version of the Congressional Record and has been around since the Clinton Administration. If you want things before they even leave the committees, you may have to look somewhere else, but everything else is available there.
One of the main problems in our federal government right now is that we have millions of armchair quarterbacks who don't properly understand the rules of the game.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:2, Informative)
which law was broken by offering jobs to people so they wouldn't run against an incumbent? Seems like a typical political favor to me. Disappointing, but not surprising in the least from a politician.
Here ya go...
18 USC 211 - Sec. 211. Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office
"Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States."
http://vlex.com/vid/acceptance-solicitation-obtain-appointive-19190192 [vlex.com]
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, that is the traditional left-right axis. What else do you think "leftist" means?
Utterly intellectually dishonest (Score:1, Informative)
Reid doesn't bring anything to the floor unless he has the votes ahead of time. Plenty of legislative items (like the dozens of bills that have passed the House) have stalled in the Senate if you had bothered to check. But of course, you didn't because you don't care.
And Republican obstructionism doesn't stop there - if a hold is made it takes three days to plow through the procedural hurdles to get to a vote... which frequently ends up being rediculously lopsided (99-1). That's all fine and good for the odd nominee and here but when Republicans have put holds on over a hundred routine political appointments, otherwise utterly uncontroversial appointments whither on the vine because the Senate would have to spend an entire year doing nothing but wading through Republican obstructionism.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge basic facts and reality is why we can't have nice things so take your talking points and shove up your ass you lying piece of shit.
Re:I give up (Score:1, Informative)
The Republicans are stopping Obama? What world do you live in.
They failed to stop him from taking over the auto industry.
They failed to stop him from taking over the health-care industry.
Now they're failing to stop him from taking over the banking industry.
They're failing to stop him from putting a left wing-nut on the Supreme Court.
My biggest problem with the Republicans is I wish they'd grow a spine.