Obama administration restricts investigative powers of inspectors general

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you prove evidence was hidden or edited?

Can you prove at no point has the Justice Department denied any of Mr. Horowitz’s requests?



The "proof" is still under investigation.

FOIA requests and court orders usually bring out the hidden info.....

just like it did in some of the IRS and Hillary State Department investigations.

a reply to: xuenchen

Can you prove at no point has the Justice Department denied any of Mr. Horowitz’s requests?

It said exactly that in your source.

At no point has the Justice Department denied any of Mr. Horowitz’s requests

The "proof" is still under investigation.

If that's the case, then how can you logically say this:

Proof that the JD is circlejerking the process in order to hide and edit the evidence !!!!!

You're stepping all over yourself.

I'm with introvert on this one. The IG is just one big racist attempting to undermine not only the first black president but African Americans in general. If Obama tells you that everything's ok then everything is ok. When has he ever lied to us before? Besides that IRS thingy and that fast and furious thingy and that Benghazi and obamacare and the deficit and the red lines, but I mean what else has he lied about you RACISTS!

Do any of you realize that the IGs are employees of these EXECUTIVE departments?

Here's the actual, rational basis of "The Tyrant Obama is trying to control more stuff" hysteria ...

From the same Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times article:

An opinion, issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, says the Inspector General Act of 1978 — which was written by Congress to create the government watchdogs in order to help maintain integrity within their agencies — does not have the authority to override nondisclosure provisions in other laws, most notably in regard to grand jury, wiretap or fair credit information.

The legal decision intended to act to preserve people's PRIVACY (and believe it or not, government employees still have Constitutional rights) and avoid further government OVERREACH:

“In reaching these conclusions, our Office’s role has not been to decide what access [inspectors general] should receive as a matter of policy. Rather, we have endeavored to determine as a matter of law, using established tools of statutory construction, how best to reconcile the strong privacy protections … with the interest in access reflected in … the IG Act,” states the legal counsel’s opinion, which was dated Monday and released Thursday."

Now, back to your scheduled hand-wringing and Obama-bashing.

Outlaws running the nation. Absolutely no accountability, no end in sight.

Just sit back and ponder...where the hell are we headed as a nation, whats the endgame, what if Hillary actually becomes POTUSA???

Where/When is rock bottom? When might we possibly come together and start rebuilding without being lead by outlaws? Is that even plausible?

WTF?

originally posted by: six67seven
Outlaws running the nation. Absolutely no accountability, no end in sight.

Just sit back and ponder...where the hell are we headed as a nation, whats the endgame, what if Hillary actually becomes POTUSA???

Where/When is rock bottom? When might we possibly come together and start rebuilding without being lead by outlaws? Is that even plausible?

WTF?

You mean, what if the American People elect another President that you personally don't like?

What would you suggest? Should we abolish the Constitution?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm under the impression that when a government official holds an elected office, for example president, secretary of state, or even congressmen, that they should not be afforded the expectation of privacy when conducting the business of the United States.

While some information obviously can't be disclosed to the public, I would think that congress, IG's, and any entity that investigates such issues should have complete disclosure.

What would you suggest? Should we abolish the Constitution?

They don't even follow the constitution anymore... why not abolish it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Tell me that Obama isn't as dishonest as they come. The guys first reaction to almost everything big is either a fabrication ie: "not a smidgen of corruption" or a deflection ie: "I saw it on the news"

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: six67seven
Outlaws running the nation. Absolutely no accountability, no end in sight.

Just sit back and ponder...where the hell are we headed as a nation, whats the endgame, what if Hillary actually becomes POTUSA???

Where/When is rock bottom? When might we possibly come together and start rebuilding without being lead by outlaws? Is that even plausible?

WTF?

You mean, what if the American People elect another President that you personally don't like?

What would you suggest? Should we abolish the Constitution?

You are beyond ridiculous.

Bet you didnt know I voted for Obama the first time around...of course you didnt because youre an ASSumer!

As if whether I like a president or not determines whether theyre an outlaw... No, Its not determined by me, its validated by their actions!

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: six67seven
Outlaws running the nation. Absolutely no accountability, no end in sight.

Just sit back and ponder...where the hell are we headed as a nation, whats the endgame, what if Hillary actually becomes POTUSA???

Where/When is rock bottom? When might we possibly come together and start rebuilding without being lead by outlaws? Is that even plausible?

WTF?

You mean, what if the American People elect another President that you personally don't like?

What would you suggest? Should we abolish the Constitution?

You are beyond ridiculous.

Bet you didnt know I voted for Obama the first time around...of course you didnt because youre an ASSumer!

As if whether I like a president or not determines whether theyre an outlaw... No, Its not determined by me, its validated by their actions!

Your vote in 2008 matters how in this context?

You're whining about the duly elected President of the US. You're whining about who you're afraid might win next time.

You're chiming in on an article that you apparently have very little understanding of; this provision was instated precisely to keep the IGs COMPLIANT with the laws of the land. There are more than one or two laws at the Federal level.

Calling anyone in the Administration "outlaws" based on this evidence just looks ... not very well informed.

Lets put it this way...consider all the news that leaks out about the Obama administration. IRS targeting, emails disappearing, Behghazi, and on and on and on and on. Now consider that these are the most powerful people in the world with access to the largest amount of money in the world. Finally...consider this...with all that support from the democrats, media and all the assets this administration has to hide all the criminal acts they are perpetrating....how much have they successfully hidden??? My guess...1% has come to light, 99% is still under wraps.

a reply to: EternalSolace

And the IG's can get access to whatever they need, so long as other's PERSONAL PRIVACY is not being breached.

The IG also works for someone ... someone who is responsible for their actions ... and all this guidance is saying is that individual should be consulted to help insure that other equally important laws aren't being ignored.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tell me that Obama isn't as dishonest as they come. The guys first reaction to almost everything big is either a fabrication ie: "not a smidgen of corruption" or a deflection ie: "I saw it on the news"

I understand that you don't care for the President.

I'm not sure what your personal dislike has to do with this topic.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Lets put it this way...consider all the news that leaks out about the Obama administration. IRS targeting, emails disappearing, Behghazi, and on and on and on and on. Now consider that these are the most powerful people in the world with access to the largest amount of money in the world. Finally...consider this...with all that support from the democrats, media and all the assets this administration has to hide all the criminal acts they are perpetrating....how much have they successfully hidden??? My guess...1% has come to light, 99% is still under wraps.

I believe you mistake the propaganda generated by the right-wing mainstream media as truth.

What has been the result of all the investigations (and how many have there been, 14 on Benghazi alone)?

Nothing.

Not one finding of wrongdoing, not one referral to prosecution ... nothing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What if the others are engaging in official business? Should their privacy still apply?

I understand what you're getting at, I just think that there's a distinction between personal privacy (dinner @6pm with whomever) and official business (we're spending 5mil on green energy). If the others privacy entails anything about that 5mil, I don't think it should be privileged. That's all I'm getting at.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Gryphon66

What if the others are engaging in official business? Should their privacy still apply?

I understand what you're getting at, I just think that theres a distinction between personal privacy (dinner @6pm with whomever) and official business (we're spending 5mil on green energy). If the others privacy entails anything about that 5mil, I don't think it should be privilidged. That's all I'm getting at.

That's precisely why the direction is that IG's supervisor is now directly involved.

I understand there's also a procedure if the IG had reason to investigate their superior.

Why is that so threatening? It seems to me like a normal, regular administrative compromise to make sure that all regulations/laws are being followed to the best of the department's ability.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think it's threatening so long as that distinction is made and kept. Though it's unnerving that it can potentially be up to interpretation by one individual... in this case a supervisor. So long as there is a route to bypass that supervisor if the evidence is strong enough, I'm okay with that.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think it's threatening so long as that distinction is made and kept. Though it's unnerving that it can potentially be up to interpretation by one individual... in this case a supervisor. So long as there is a route to bypass that supervisor if the evidence is strong enough, I'm okay with that.

I'm sure if the IG's feel strongly enough (witness Mr. Horowitz's example) they will find a way to bring it to the attention of the proper channels.

Besides that, there are single decision-makers in governments at all levels ... and almost always a process to take the matter up a chain of command.

It is bureaucracy, after all!

Interesting that Obama is trying to maintain certain level of privacy for his agencies and employees, but when it comes to the privacy of American citizens, tax payers and voters he have not problem with having his agencies up to our butts.

The irony, we the people can not hide anything but the government is exempt.

Did I spell corruption right?

BTW, the reason that Obama hide his school records is because probably we had poorly grades to begin with.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It is bureaucracy, after all!

True enough it sure is. I guess it's also comforting to know they they're cut throat enough to bury someone for trying to hide something if it helps them move up the chain.