Freedom of Information restrained
Yesterday, the Executive Office of the President published in the Federal Register, without an opportunity for public comment, removal of the regulations related to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, which means, basically, that the White House is exempting itself from transparency. From The Hill;
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the office after being denied access to documents it had requested to obtain details about a slew of emails that had gone missing from White House servers.
After a lengthy appeal, the court upheld the ruling that the Office of Administration, which advises and assists the president, is not an “agency” as defined by the FOIA.
Since it only “performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff,” the court ruled in 2009, “under our precedent, [the Office of Administration] lacks substantial independent authority.”
The White House, which has not released any Office of Administration records under FOIA, used the ruling to defend the change.
“This federal register notice does not change any aspect of the Administration’s FOIA policy. It simply removes outdated regulations that no longer apply to the Office of Administration and haven’t applied since the Bush Administration,” a White House official told The Hill in an email.
“Generally speaking, the Administration has gone to great lengths to release more information on the front end so that individuals do not have to file a FOIA to get access to government data and other information,” the official added.
Yeah, well, it is the information that’s on the back end that we’re concerned about – that’s why there’s a FOIA process.
Category: Politics
“and haven’t applied since the Bush Administration,”
I think your picture is wrong …
Did they just blame this stunt on Bush? Seriously??
I think they are saying that Bush was the last one to follow them. In other words we have never followed these rules and are now just putting it on paper.
They found a way to invoke “the Bush administration.” I can guess which one.
Sniper.
“This is the most transparent administration in history.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283335-obama-this-is-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/11/the_tmi_presidency.html
Of course, they also seem to enjoy “rectifying” history when it suits them to do so:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-most-transparent-administration-ever-doctors-its-quotes/259857/
“Of course, they also seem to enjoy “rectifying” history when it suits them to do so:”
Shades of “1984”!
Shades of The CCCP!
No ‘shades of’ there. They’re painting with a full palette.
But only in shades of Red…
Rose-tinted lenses are pink, and seem to be used often by the left. Does that count?
Does the pResident draw red lines in the sand, or pink lines? Or lines that fade to nothing in a set time?
Ministry of Truth in all but name…
They haven’t erased people from photos a la Stalin, at least not yet.
Washington Post erased GWB from the Selma anniversary photo on the front page. It has begun.
As did the NYT and People Mag.
BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) strikes again!
Makes one believe in and advocate for retrograde abortions.
Lars isn’t up yet so I’ll proxy for him: You all are a bunch of racists!
Can you channel his definition for the word “transparency” please? I think the problem is that we are probably misusing that word and he could clear it all up by telling us what the word “transparency” really means from the proper socio-political economic construct supported by compiled demographic data.
I’ll make popcorn.
sj…You beat me to it.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
Hilly Rodhem Clinton 2016
Unfortunately for the Leftist Libtards, in today’s Internet Age, “Digital Is Forever”.
Yup but who will control our Interweb in a few years?
This is a simple case of the law doesn’t define that office as an independent agency. Consequently Bush 43 could not be compelled to answer calls for email and Obama making this rule simply cleans up what was decided legally in 2009.
This all came up because Bush dismantled the automated e-mail archiving system of the White House in 2002. There was a talk in February of 2008 for Mukasey to investigate with a special counsel whether or not Bush/Cheney had violated the Federal Records Act by failing to preserve these emails. Sound familiar in light of recent events?
The court ruled that the OA wasn’t an agency, consequently it couldn’t be compelled to release anything under FOIA and here we are.
Much ado about nothing. If it’s not an agency it isn’t required to comply. Period, if it was true for Bush it should remain true for Obama.
The issue is not whether it is legal for the administration to do what it is doing in denying the comment portion of the FOIA notice and comment provisions, but that it is the administration of the fellow who promised to have the most transparent of administrations that is doing it.
“While there is always more work to be done, our record demonstrates this Administration’s commitment to transparency is second to none,” the White House said. Oh bullshit.
Now that I re-read the quote, I see that the WH line has changed. It is its claim of commitment to transparency, not transparency, that it regards as second to none.
Read the third link in my earlier comment, 2/17 Air Cav.
This White House seems to “rectify” previous comments quite often.
“Rectumfy” – see, I fixed it.
Revisionist history is alive and well with this administration and they haven’t even left 1600 PA Ave yet.
Separate issues for me. There is a clear problem with compliance with requests filed for actual agencies that are compelled to comply that’s a true fact.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ab029d7c625149348143a51ff61175c6/us-sets-new-record-denying-censoring-government-files
But an office that is not compelled to comply not complying is a non-story for me regardless of what was said. I don’t expect a transparency promise to apply to areas where it never applied before only to those areas where mandated compliance is currently delayed.
Under that premise Obama is failing miserably and if clearly unable to fulfill his promise.
If people are pissed off about this, they should also be pissed off at Bush/Cheney because that’s where this started. I am not pissed off at either, not because I’m a big fan of either administration but because I believe the law is the law and once the law determines that office is not an agency as defined under the law there’s nothing more to be said about it and we can move on to those areas where the current administration is actually failing of which there is no shortage.
I don’t that anyone is pissed off, VOV. I think it’s more like a fat pitch belt high. (On second thought, that’s a bad simile. I have seen Obama try to throw a baseball.)
I don’t what? I don’t think.
Too easy. Let it alone. Don’t go there. I already did.
Never fear I knew what you meant and I understand the no edit feature is difficult for those of us with the thicker fingers who strike a bunch of keys at once.
I can type quickly thanks to my typing teacher and years of computer work, but on discussion boards I tend to mangle two or three keys at a time which leads to some entertaining mis-spellings.
“transparency” in O admin is used as a tool to emit propaganda, only its not been working so well lately. The left has a problem with the O leaving his fellow stank azz politicians out in the air so to speak, hillary-emails/benghazi…Left wing media doesn’t like having to run cover for the appointed wicked witch of their party. This admin is something of a humpty dumpty thing…all the media can’t put this leader back together. Lost respect from the lib centrist. Love hate thing. Of course the left always wears rose colored glasses and doesn’t see a problem, this is after all their King.
He keeps using this word “transparency”. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Perhaps the correct word is “translucent”.
Transgendered?
Actually, I suspect the correct word is “transnational.”
“Opaque”
Obummer could always run the VA when he leaves office…..
“Abandon Hope (and Change), All Ye Who Enter Here.”
While I agree that technically this may be a non-story because the strict letter of the law only applies to agencies, it seems to me that the intent of the law – that record keeping be thorough and accessible – is being circumvented by a technicality. As Mr. Truman said, the government belongs to the people and it is incumbent on the government to be open and responsive to those people (neither of which has occurred damn near SINCE Truman.)
OT: 3/17! Commo Check! You’ve been silent for days.
SJ, 3/17 was here at my place over the weekend.
He departed here for return to home station about 0645 hrs Monday morning.
I’ve tried a couple of times to contact him by phone, but his voice mail thingy says the box is full and can’t accept any new messages.
But I’m assuming he made it home safely and is currently putting out some grass fires that popped up while he was here.
That’s the current SITREP.
Lars, is it racist to criticize this? Forward!