Obama Admin Fights Missing White House Email Lawsuit

DesScorp writes "The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue by trying to have a lawsuit dismissed that would have kept investigating whether or not email was still missing. Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President expressed disappointment with the Obama administration's actions. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government. The Justice Department 'apparently never got the message' from Obama, Blanton said."

Comments

Here in Mexico...

[Spy der Mann]

we experienced something similar after an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out, but it didn't happen (mainly because the then candidate president promised not to fire people just because there was a change in the admin). It's OBVIOUS that when the bureaucrats notice they're gonna be watched, they start covering each other's asses.

Why would the people in the Obama administration be any different?

How so?

[khasim]

That anonymity, a form of secrecy is necessary for honest communications.

How so? Particularly with regard to government operations.

If the President cannot communicate honestly, then he cannot do his job.

And yet you have not established that secrecy is a necessity for honesty.

But I can give you MANY examples of secrecy being a necessity for DISHONESTY.

Imagine if LBJ's tapes had been made public during his administration. Do you want to throw away the Civil Right's act because he's also tailing MLK?

Why would that be necessary?

Let the public decisions an administration makes stand for themselves, right wing or left wing, and don't let yourself get trapped up needing to see every frank discussion that takes place behind the scenes.

And that makes sense as long as you agree with every decision made.

Fuck that.

This is our elected government. Not our king.

This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and you need to let leaders lead. If you don't like the way they lead, then run for office yourself.

So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.

Fuck that, too.

They're elected officials. This is not an autocracy.

What the .... ?

[khasim]

So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.

That's a Republic, exactly that.

We are electing politicians. Not princes and kings.

You vote for the best and brightest to run the country within the allowed scope of their powers for some limited term, and they can do whatever they want, without harassment.

And now you're confusing oversight with "harassment".

Just let the damn President and the elected officials do their job.

Your "logic" is self contradictory.

By your "logic".
They were elected to do a job.
Once they are elected, they can do whatever they want to do.
And no matter what they are doing, the public must not bother them about what they are doing.
Even if what they are doing is the opposite of what the people who voted for them asked them to do.

Fuck that. Fuck princes and kings. I'm watching my elected officials. I'm watching what they're doing. If I don't approve, I let them know.

You can keep your princes and kings.