Slashdot Mirror
Liberal Watchdog Questions White House Gmail Use
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."
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++
Wasn't Palin's email full of personal stuff and not full of emails from lobbyists and the like offering bribes?
There's nothing forbidding politicians and their staffers from having personal email accounts. However, it is illegal to use them for official, government business as is being alleged here.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Well, the other way to look at it is that they used private e-mail to avoid violating the law prohibiting use of public e-mail accounts for conducting political business. Most folks who work for the White House have, for example, 2 cell phones. One is paid for by the taxpayer and is used when conducting official government business. The other is paid for by the party or by a campaign committee and is used when conducting political business which the government employee, by law, must do in their "private" time and using private, not government, resources.
Since the law expressly allows federal employees at that level to remain involved with the political process, so long as they don't use public resources to do so, I don't see how they can function without having a separate e-mail account just as they have a separate cell phone. 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.
And yes, I took the same position with the last President as I do with this one, even though I really don't care for the current President.
This administration has been terrible. All this promise, and then failure. And now there is news that the voter intimidation case got dropped for political reasons? I mean, there the guy is, holding a baton.....seriously, WTF.
Using Gmail should not be allowed. Government officials need to have ALL their activities OPENED to us, the people, unless it is personal stuff. This stuff is NOT personal, it is skirting the law. I don't care if PREVIOUS administrations did it or not. I don't care. Obama promised to do things DIFFERENTLY and I see nothing but business as usual if not more of an orgy type atmosphere there since they have a hold on both houses as well right now.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Nah, you have to register as a federal lobbyist, the Lobbying Disclosure Act and Honest Leadership and Open Government Act cover this. There isn't any vague area here.
Once you get into a public trust position you are expected to keep your contact with certain people, like lobbyists and contractors, strictly professional. If you have a personal relationship with someone you have to work with in this capacity it will be a problem and you will be expected to break it off or quit your position. There are rules outlining everything from gifts to phone calls. There isn't any room to maneuver here with the "yeah but what about the grandmom that gave us $100" defense. This isn't about her. This is about your "friend" over at Big Oil telling you to keep cameras off the beach in Pensacola because it might look bad, etc. A legit need for oversight.
No wharrgarbl like political wharrgarbl, amirite? Read this. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
"Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no"
He tried, the Republicans shut him down.
Anybody who claims that the President/Senate/House “tried” to do something but the Republicans “shut them down” is being downright dishonest.
With their huge majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats can do anything they damn well please if only they could get all their fellow Democrats onto the party bus. The moderate Democrats are the ones who shot it down.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
"Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no"
He tried, the Republicans shut him down.
Umm, thats a complete Executive Branch decision there so unless the Republicans somehow took control of the Presidency and then gave it back to Obama, that doesn't work.
'"There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and supports the Illinois plan. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.
And Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who also supports shutting it, said the effort is “on life support and it’s unlikely to close any time soon.” He attributed the collapse to some fellow Republicans’ “demagoguery” and the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.
But Mr. Levin portrayed the administration as unwilling to make a serious effort to exert its influence, contrasting its muted response to legislative hurdles to closing Guantánamo with “very vocal” threats to veto financing for a fighter jet engine it opposes.
Last year, for example, the administration stood aside as lawmakers restricted the transfer of detainees into the United States except for prosecution. And its response was silence several weeks ago, Mr. Levin said.”'
The leading Democrat on SASC won't put blame on the Republicans and puts blame squarely on the White House.
So?? So???
There's no triviality here. You could keep your old plan, yes, but the changes that the bill causes would make that a colossally stupid move. The implicit promise was that you could keep your FREEDOM to choose a plan you liked. This is decidedly not the case, because your current rate and benefits aren't going to keep you happy for very long. Again, due to the inflation we're inevitably about to see.
I think the implication is that the situation doesn't change for you. If your employer switches health plans under the previous system, you were screwed too. Nothing got worse.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Yes. PolitiFact has what they call an Obamameter, which tracks promises Obama made while campaigning. I realize it's fun to point to specific things you don't like and say that Obama has kept no promises, but that's dishonest.
You can argue that on some large issues, Obama has backtracked (such as his apparent desire to continue the ridiculous power grab of the executive during the Bush administration), but don't lie and say Obama has kept no promises. You look better (at least to those who don't already agree with you) if you're willing to be reasonable.
Disclaimers should not be necessary for posts like this, but since irrationality always pops up on political threads:
I voted for Obama in 2008, but only because I wanted McCain to be crushed after his ridiculous choice of VP candidate.
I will vote for Obama in 2012 only if the Republicans put a Palin-like character on the ticket. I've been unhappy with some of Obama's decisions.
I am not a Democratic/Obama apologist. To the people who believe that if you approve of anything a politician does, you approve of everything he does, you need to do a better job of understanding how the world works.
You mean like their filibuster of the health care reform bill? Or the jobs bill? Or the appointment of Patricia Smith?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
To take almost any substantive action in the Senate requires sufficient votes to invoke cloture against a filibuster, i.e., 60 votes.
There are 58 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate (56 of whom are actually Democrats, 2 of whom are independents who caucus with the Democrats.) Depending on the sense in which the word "Democrats" (specifically, whether you refer to the party proper or the caucus) is used, that puts them either 2 or 4 votes shy of being able to take substantive action in the Senate without Republican support, even if every single Democrat is in favor.
If this is a legal requirement, than you're not in a war. The US congress declared war for the last time (so far) in June 5, 1942 and this is what it takes for you to be formally in a war. So the president probably can't use anything that can be done only in times of war.
That is exactly the problem in Government right now. These HUGE bills that no one knows what they contain.
Only because they don't appear to know how to use THOMAS, where activity up to floor actions from the day before are available. It's the web version of the Congressional Record and has been around since the Clinton Administration. If you want things before they even leave the committees, you may have to look somewhere else, but everything else is available there.
One of the main problems in our federal government right now is that we have millions of armchair quarterbacks who don't properly understand the rules of the game.