Judge orders Obama Administration to hand over visitor logs under FOIA.

"U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled against the Obama administration, Wednesday, finding that the Secret Service’s White House visitor logs are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The non-partisan pro-transparency non-profit Judicial Watch had requested to see a complete list of who visited the White House between January 20, 2009 and August, 10, 2009."

"President Obama had promised that his administration was committed “to be the most open and transparent ever.” But an Associated Press study found that the Obama administration is ducking FOIA requests at a greater rate than past administrations even though the number of requests is down.

The Obama administration has further circumvented their transparency promise by meeting lobbyists near, but not in the White House, thus avoiding the Secret Service logs entirely.

“This is a major victory for open government and an embarrassing defeat for the Obama administration,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This administration will now have to release all records of all visitors to the White House – or explain why White House visits should be kept secret under law. It is refreshing to see the court remind this this administration that the rule of law applies to it.”

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...

What is odd about this is the specific time frame, being only 20 days, making it highly likely that there is excellent intelligence that there were visits to the White House that they would prefer not be made public.

It will be interesting to find out who visited and why they visited.

It is not surprising that the administration would prefer to do things in secret. They are above the law, view the citizens as subjects with no right to have any visibility into their government.

Nothing to worry about for anyone in the Obama administration. Should anything seriously have gone on that should not have, taking it down the legal path would be the responsibility of the Holder Justice Department.

reply to post by dolphinfan

I didn't see a link, but I don't need one. I also agree that Obama seems to think he is above the law. This is not a good example to set as a leader, and this is one of the reasons I don't support him. There have been to many flagrant evasions for me to trust him, and as a leader, this is self-destructive.
I'm glad the Justice Department is trying to save it's respect by the people by keeping tabs on him. How could we possibly respect the law, with a dis-respectable Justice Department.
The military teaches a lot about leadership, and short of having all members of the power-positions serve in that capacity, perhaps they should at least mandate leadership training for those who plan to "lead" the country.

He thinks he is transparent? He is about as transparent as the Berlin Wall.

I read this earlier too, here is a link for anyone who wants to read the whole article:

source

This administration that promised transparency has so far been anything but. This blow hopefully will be followed by others that will show the people exactly why the administration avoids transparency. What they will find, who knows?

reply to post by dolphinfan


Obama could care less about this ruling. He does what he wants and if litterally forced to give logs but justice dept *yeah right* they will probably be heavily redacted.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


They will find something. The FOIA request is extremely narrow in scope. That the administration has been more than willing to release many of the visitor logs, but has refused those within such a narrow time band tells you that something was going on during that 20 day period.

There is someone out there who knows who went into the White House and they are going to come out with it. The logs may further the reporting/disclosure but it will come out either way. If it were merely a desire to have the visitor logs then it would have been a blanket request, which would also be reasonable. To target the request in such a manner is telling the administration that they know what went on and are giving them an opportunity to come clean about it.

Now that Obama is sinking so quickly, there will be a lot more to come out. Soon you'll see senior administration officials leaving for "personal reasons", similar to the entire economic team other than Sec Tres leaving a while ago. Folks are going to jump off of that ship before it sinks and then the stories will come out.

reply to post by dolphinfan


The part of the article that intrigues me, and offers the administration some protetcion here is:

Howell said the Secret Service must disclose the records, except individual entries that fall under exemptions like for national security.

How many 'exemptions' will be declared?

Originally posted by kellynap43
He thinks he is transparent? He is about as transparent as the Berlin Wall.

The Berlin wall was pretty transparent, when you looked through the holes.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Just about anything is "national security" to the extent that they choose it to be.

Maybe Sandy Berger was bringing back those documents he jammed down his pants when he was Clinton's national security advisor.

It does not matter because its quite obvious that someone knows who went in and they just want the administration to disclose it publically to embarrass them.

Here's a concept. Let's make this about the policy and not another Obama bashing thread.

Who was the first president to make the visitor list secret?

Why now? Why weren't they opened during the Bush administration?

Who really stopped Obama from allowing the list to be open as he wanted them?

These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge. The visitor logs are created by the Secret Service and maintained by the Secret Service, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in 2007 and again this January. CREW had requested records of visits to the Bush White House, as well as the residence of Vice President Dick Cheney, by leaders of Religious Right organizations.

The Bush administration appealed Lamberth's decision, and the Obama administration has continued to press that appeal.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by Annee


Of course you're right that this has been a problem for some time.

The reason it is particularily an issue with respect to this administration is that one of the components of "Hope and Change" was to be an unprecented level of transparency and as the article linked to the original states, Obama has denied FOIA requests in greater percentage of requests than previous administrations.

Couple that with clandestine meetings with lobbiests off site to avoid the disclosure, the failure to put up on-line major pieces of legislation for the promised 3 days for public review and you have another blatant disregard for a pretty simple campaign promise.

Same as Gitmo. Supposed to be cut and dried, but reality hits and its not so simple.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Annee

 

Of course you're right that this has been a problem for some time.

The reason it is particularily an issue with respect to this administration is that one of the components of "Hope and Change" was to be an unprecented level of transparency and as the article linked to the original states, Obama has denied FOIA requests in greater percentage of requests than previous administrations.

Yes I know. I realize what Obama (and all pre-elected presidents) say - - - does not always transfer into the reality of their presidency.

Clinton - Bush "W" - Obama - - - ALL looked a deathly shade of gray and like they aged a hundred years coming out of the "president briefing" - - - after they were elected.

I do not think any of them had a clue of the full extent of control behind the title.

Pretty much - - once elected - - you're owned. Owned by who or whom - - unknown.

I honestly believe Obama himself is the personable person of his campaign and believed his intentions.

I do agree that Republicans are being ridiculous and need to be right - - - more then do what's right.

Originally posted by Annee
Clinton - Bush "W" - Obama - - - ALL looked a deathly shade of gray and like they aged a hundred years coming out of the "president briefing" - - - after they were elected.

I do not think any of them had a clue of the full extent of control behind the title.

Pretty much - - once elected - - you're owned. Owned by who or whom - - unknown.

I honestly believe Obama himself is the personable person of his campaign and believed his intentions.

I do agree that Republicans are being ridiculous and need to be right - - - more then do what's right.

Eeeeee. I just got chills. I noticed the same exact thing the day after Obama's briefing. It was SO noticeable, that I felt a massive wave of uneasiness wash over me. Any time I get into a political discussion with family or friends, I mention that day and Obama's appearance, but no-one seems to have noticed as I did. I actually began to search around for footage of that day and was unsuccessful in locating it. If you look at him the day before the briefing and the day after, it's like looking at two completely different people.

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm glad I'm not the only one who observed this. I 'll have to agree on all points of your post!

Originally posted by HolographicPrincipal
If you look at him the day before the briefing and the day after, it's like looking at two completely different people.

Yes.

But also with Bush "W" and Clinton.

What Is the point of doing this?
It is a Joke.
"except individual entries that fall under exemptions like for national security."
So the court order is toilet paper.
Just for Show.

Originally posted by buddha

Just for Show.

Who's show?

Originally posted by Annee
Here's a concept. Let's make this about the policy and not another Obama bashing thread.


These same arguments, made by the Bush administration

The Bush administration appealed Lamberth's decision, and the Obama administration has continued to press that appeal.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Lets not turn it into a bush bashing
policy thread either.

Obama is in office now, he is at the helm of the ship..
There is only one commander in chief...
It is all on his hands now..

Originally posted by drfeelme

Lets not turn it into a bush bashing
policy thread either.

Let's not turn it into an Obama bashing.

In some cases policies are brought forward from previous administrations and apply to the conversation.

Like this one.

Good on the judge... but Obama already thought this could happen... so he planned ahead...

W.H. meets lobbyists off campus

Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.

It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.

Chicago crooks know all the tricks.

reply to post by Annee


What exactly then do you suppose you turn it into?

Considering that the whole FOIA request and subsequent ruling has to do with the Obama Administration not releasing its visitor's logs.

Him and his administration did it. Now they have to own up to it. After all it was Obama's words straight from his mouth(paraphrased), "This will be the most open and transparent administration in history."