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."
No Surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody does it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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++
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
and the Bush administration was yelled at for same (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
....aaaaaand the Obama administration has ZERO excuse for this, given that the Bush Administration and WH staffers were caught doing exactly the same thing [wikipedia.org] (well, not exactly- in the Bush case, they were discussing firing US DA's for political advantage, and discussing CIA leaks...the list of illegal activity goes on and on.)
Aside from ignorance not being defense, Obama-ites were obviously not ignorant about it after the last administration were caught doing it!
Oh, and if you think this only happens in the White House, guess again. Mayor Thomas Menino in Boston had a lackey named Michael J. Kineavy who had his fingers in everything and was deleting emails before the City Hall backup server would get to them. And the City didn't have an email archiving system. And the city tried to claim that it'd cost a bazillion dollars to try and recover from the tapes they did have! More: http://www.google.com/search?q=menino+email [google.com]
Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? (Score:4, Insightful)
With all these lobbyists in Washington, I have always wondered who takes care of the ordinary citizen's interests in that city.
I guess the better question would be:
Who is lobbying on behalf of Joe Six Pack and family in Washington? Is there any?
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for CREW. Most of these partisan advocacy groups play team red / team blue and have to check the roster to decide where they stand on an issue. It is great to see one of them finally standing on principal and holding their own team to the same standard. It would be nice if every "issue advocacy" group would stick to its guns without regard to party affiliation.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Government transparency? Ummm, no
If you like your health insurance, you can keep it? Umm, no
No lobbyists in the Obama Administration? Umm, no
Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You just used more words than the summary to sum up the summary. Why?
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? (Score:2, Insightful)
I always thought that was the job of the Senators and Representatives. I suspect they sometimes forget this, though.
Re:Pledge? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the funniest and saddest thing is that Video FOX news likes to air of Nancy Pelosi saying to her people that she'd love to share what is in the bill but they need to pass it first.
That is exactly the problem in Government right now. These HUGE bills that no one knows what they contain.
I say we vote them ALL out and start over.
Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well what is the ordinary citizen?
What is their education, what do they do for a living, what services do they need, what don't they need...
You say who is fighting for the ordinary citizen's like it is a simple statement. If you are too tough on corporations they cannot operate and move out and kill the economy, if you are too lax they will take over. Every choice has a tradeoff. Lobbyists work for a big slue of sectors including many non-corprate groups, and other groups that you may call the Good Guys...
Hey if I worked for a Oil company I just may like the Oil Lobby as it is defending work for me as the average joe... But if you don't then they may be the enemy.
Unfortunately without lobbyists I see politicians swerving to whatever the general population thinks at the time, and then money and resources are put in and by the time it gets going it is dropped as their values change overnight...
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but this is "the most transparent administration in history"
Don't forget that being the best at transparency does not mean being good at something. It just means being less terrible than the other guy(s).
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting that both you and the gp apparently read that campaign promise as an employer. I always assumed he meant it for the employees, for which it is, generally, quite true.
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which leaves me facing the next election to choose between the candidate who says he'll do things I care about, but won't, and the candidate who says he'll do things I hate, and will.
Sigh.
Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of course is not the lobbying (it is a constitutionally protected right after all), it's the politicians who care more about getting a steak dinner, a Rolex, and a blow job than doing what's best for their constituents and their country.
Re:Pledge? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I give up (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to pojnt the finger at the right people.
The Republicans have move to stop ANYTHING coming from the whitehouse.
over 200 Appoints held up. Sure, a few in key policialt places get a close look, thats norrmal, Over 200? Bullshit.
When the president has agreed on bills sponsored by republicans, the republicans stop backing it
When there isn't something they like they filibuster.
Even when they are dealing with confirming a person they like, they twist all the questions into a political knife that is irrelevant to the confirmation.
No one knw if Gmail is being used, thats what the investigation is for.
" This stuff is NOT personal,
what stuff? again, there is nothing , just an investigation.
"Obama promised to do things DIFFERENTLY"
He has. Start paying attention.
They do not have a hold of both houses. Have you not been paying attention? the Republicans filibuster, and deny almost everything. IN fact, they have denied appointees anonymously. WTF kind of cowardice is that?
They are doing whatever they can to slow down or stop the government. Watch the debates, read the documents PAY ATTENTION.
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you show me the email that was state business being sent from Sarah Palin's personal account? Everything I've seen is stuff that didn't belong on the official government email. The email titled "LOOK AT TRIGG!" does not belong on government servers.
Also, Todd did not work for the State of Alaska, regardless of what is in his email. Had he gotten an official Alaska.gov email address, then you'd have something. Otherwise, Michelle Obama's statement that the government can tell us what to eat could be considered an executive order.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no"
He tried, the Republicans shut him down.
I'll give you a pass on that one, even though it's completely wrong, but 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.
Re:and the Bush administration was yelled at for s (Score:3, Insightful)
The allegations , first reported last week by the New York Times,
Fixed that for you.
If one actually bothers to read the original NYT article, one would know it still only talking about allegations. And a limited number of incidents reported by unnamed lobbyists at that. Because there are allegations, CREW called for an official investigation to determine if there is truth to the allegations.
The bigger issue discussed was that coffee-shops being used as meeting places, which again is neither illegal nor necessarily a sign of corruption. It's not a strange and terrible thing for people to meet outside the office. I'd personally be more worried if they were meeting in a private hotel room rather than a busy coffee shop where they can be overheard by reporters.
You're right, there's no excuse for this administration to be caught regularly violating official records laws and ethics rules. But it's kind of important to realize they haven't yet. It's sad that so many in the Slashdot crowd aren't capable of seeing the distinction between sensational headlines and reality.
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a bit like being the "most secure version of Windows in history" then.
Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you are too tough on corporations they cannot operate and move out and kill the economy...
Citation(s) needed.
I'm so fucking sick of the corporate threat to leave. Leave to go where? Where is it that all these fucking cry-baby greed filled corporations runaway to? Do they even know? I honestly can't think of where this fabled place might truly exist.
When us lowly working class wake up from the slumber we've so obviously succumbed to, and we go marching on the doorsteps of these corporations, what the fuck are they going to do?
I think any corporation that threatens the People with attempted economic collapse should have all their CxOs and managers lined up to be executed by firing squad.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their huge majorities? What majorities? In the senate, there's 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and two independents that are mostly Republican. Yes, if it comes to a vote the Democrats can outvote the Republicans - at least, they could if they had some sort of party discipline, which they don't (as you mention). However, the Republicans still have the power to keep any issue they don't want voted on from actually coming to a vote. They've been using every trick in the book to delay any vote they think will go against them until the Democrats just give up. Consider the filibuster, for instance - the Democrats are helpless against it, because it takes sixty votes to stop one and they don't have sixty votes. It's turned legislation into a war of attrition, and that's why almost nothing has actually been done.
Further, this new Democratic majority means that almost all of the new Democrat representatives are junior members of Congress, which means that they have less actual power - they don't know who's who, they don't have powerful positions in the committees where the real work gets done. On the other hand, the Republicans that are still in Congress are mostly well-entrenched; they've been there for years, they head important committees, they know who to talk to to get things done, they know which curry places will give you the shits. They've got the home-field advantage.
So no, it's not just a simple matter of "whoever has a majority wins".
Re:Everybody does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can either file your own FOI request or contact the nonprofit and look through the four boxes of emails they got in theirs. I don't feel like Googling one for you.
Also, Todd did not work for the State of Alaska, regardless of what is in his email
Uhhhhhh..... THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. We have no idea who opened Todd's account, but regardless of who was reading it, state business was always BCC-ed to it. And someone who could log into the account was trying to get a state trooper fired for having a messy divorce with Sarah Palin's sister. RTFL.
Had he gotten an official Alaska.gov email address, then you'd have something. Otherwise, Michelle Obama's statement that the government can tell us what to eat could be considered an executive order.
More like Michelle Obama trying to get a general demoted for not liking her dress.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you extend coverage to 30 million extra people, not change any existing plans, and end up with the aggregate costing less than it used to?
Cost (N + 30,000,000) < Cost (N) seems like the old "sell it at a loss but make it up in volume!" strategy.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Though I'll fall back on my caveat 'no matter what Dubya did/said'. We aren't at war, never have been. The military may be 'at war' and fighting but no declaration of 'war' has ever been made.
Just because Dubya used gymnastics of logic and law to justify his actions doesn't make it right to use them now. Even if done towards doing the right thing.
Re:Pledge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
The implicit promise was that you could keep your FREEDOM to choose a plan you liked.
Most people never had the freedom to choose a plan they liked. Either take whatever crappy insurance your employer chooses or nothing at all.
Point being, now they will no longer have even the crappy coverage they used to have. At least until single payer comes along to save the day.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
It goes deeper than this as well. Imagine the immediate implications of 'guaranteed issue for children'. While it is certainly compassionate to provide insurance automatically to even the most gravely ill child, the charity will stop at the hospital's bills to the insurer. There is an assumption of profit on the part of the insurer, but once that runs out rates will either have to go up or the insurer will have to go out of business.
Gravely ill, yet previously uninsured children are generally declined today because caring for them costs an inordinate amount of money. Passing a law that bars denying them isn't going to make the bills disappear. All it will do is drive for-profit businesses into reconsidering their goals. Many will either fold, or more likely, will simply stop offering coverage for children, and individuals of any age, whatsoever.
"Keep your plan" indeed.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republican party does not vote in lock-step. They have moderate members who will vote against their party [washingtonpost.com]. In fact, of Senators in the current term who vote against their party more than 20% of the time [washingtonpost.com], 5 are Republicans (out of 43) and 4 are Democrats (out of 62). In the 2007-2008 Senate when Republicans held a 51:49 majority, the 9 Senators who voted against their party more than 20% of the time [washingtonpost.com] were all Republicans.
The problems the Democrats are having passing anything is because when they effectively got 60 Senate seats, their leadership went into the throes of a collective orgasm and dreamt up every far-left bill they could think of and tried to pass them. Not only did Republicans vote against them, they had to beg and bribe [washingtonpost.com] moderate Democrats to support those bills. If a bill you propose is opposed by all Republicans and a significant number of moderate Democrats, most intelligent people would logically conclude that the bill is far too liberal and needs to come back to center to have a chance at passing. Not that there's some right-wing conspiracy to thwart you.
Re:I give up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, let's do some math. How many successful filibusters did the Republicans mount during Obama's first year in office? Don't need an exact number, ballpark will do. Give you a hint, it rhymes with nero [senate.gov].
What part of filibuster-proof majority is so hard to understand? The reason Dems haven't accomplished much isn't the Republicans, it's that they delved too deeply and had to back off due to public backlash.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)