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."

70 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. No Surprise... by milbournosphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've learned to ignore the bulk of what the President pledges when it comes to administration transparency. That was a campaign promise that I don't feel he lived up to at all.

    1. Re:No Surprise... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean there are promises he has kept?
      Government transparency? Ummm, no
      If you like your health insurance, you can keep it? Umm, no
      No lobbyists in the Obama Administration? Umm, no
      Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:No Surprise... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you like your health insurance, you can keep it? Umm, no

      This one is amusing, by the way. It is technically true. However if you change any single feature, ZING, you're under the new law. Good luck outlasting that medical price inflation for more than a few years...

    3. Re:No Surprise... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like my health insurance. They don't let doctors interfere in my patient-insurer relationship.

    4. Re:No Surprise... by logjon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I voted for him as the lesser of two evils the first time around.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    5. Re:No Surprise... by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting that both you and the gp apparently read that campaign promise as an employer. I always assumed he meant it for the employees, for which it is, generally, quite true.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:No Surprise... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.
    7. Re:No Surprise... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    8. Re:No Surprise... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:No Surprise... by Surt · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    10. Re:No Surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:No Surprise... by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no"
      He tried, the Republicans shut him down.

      I'll give you a pass on that one, even though it's completely wrong, but here's one he can't wriggle out of by blaming Bush: ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

      All he has to do is sign an executive order. That's it. Nothing else. Doesn't need Congress's approval, doesn't need the help of anyone else in the Executive branch. He just needs to write the order and sign it.

      Still hasn't done it.

      There's no way you can blame that one on Bush.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    12. Re:No Surprise... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I agree that there are many things the Democrats could do if they all agreed (but don't all agree), you seem to be either ignorant of the concept of a filibuster or purposefully ignoring its implications.

    13. Re:No Surprise... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Informative

      uh, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a *law*.

      No matter what Dubya did or said, the President *cannot* waive it away with an Prez Order. Legally speaking anyway.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:No Surprise... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the Republicans could successfully mount a concerted filibuster, you might have a point. The moderate Republicans might as well be Democrats for the purposes of trying to filibuster something.

      Again: If the Democrats could get their moderates onto the party bus, the Republicans wouldn’t stand a chance at stopping anything the Democrats wanted to roll through. Yeah, if the Republicans could get their own moderates to toe the line, they might stand a chance at opposing it... but we all know that hasn’t happened, so quit pretending it’s all the Republicans’ fault.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:No Surprise... by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      uh, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a *law*.

      There's another law on the books that says that in times of war (like, say, when we have troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan) the President can suspend limits on who can serve in the military.

      You're right that to permanently removed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a new law is needed. If Obama was serious about ending it, though, all he has to do is sign an executive order, as long as we're at war.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    16. Re:No Surprise... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    17. Re:No Surprise... by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      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.

    18. Re:No Surprise... by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their huge majorities? What majorities? In the senate, there's 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and two independents that are mostly Republican. Yes, if it comes to a vote the Democrats can outvote the Republicans - at least, they could if they had some sort of party discipline, which they don't (as you mention). However, the Republicans still have the power to keep any issue they don't want voted on from actually coming to a vote. They've been using every trick in the book to delay any vote they think will go against them until the Democrats just give up. Consider the filibuster, for instance - the Democrats are helpless against it, because it takes sixty votes to stop one and they don't have sixty votes. It's turned legislation into a war of attrition, and that's why almost nothing has actually been done.

      Further, this new Democratic majority means that almost all of the new Democrat representatives are junior members of Congress, which means that they have less actual power - they don't know who's who, they don't have powerful positions in the committees where the real work gets done. On the other hand, the Republicans that are still in Congress are mostly well-entrenched; they've been there for years, they head important committees, they know who to talk to to get things done, they know which curry places will give you the shits. They've got the home-field advantage.

      So no, it's not just a simple matter of "whoever has a majority wins".

    19. Re:No Surprise... by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was always curious about how the claim that "we're going to reduce the cost of healthcare" squares with "nothing about your coverage today will change."

      How do you extend coverage to 30 million extra people, not change any existing plans, and end up with the aggregate costing less than it used to?

      Cost (N + 30,000,000) < Cost (N) seems like the old "sell it at a loss but make it up in volume!" strategy.

    20. Re:No Surprise... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting angle on the subject.

      Though I'll fall back on my caveat 'no matter what Dubya did/said'. We aren't at war, never have been. The military may be 'at war' and fighting but no declaration of 'war' has ever been made.

      Just because Dubya used gymnastics of logic and law to justify his actions doesn't make it right to use them now. Even if done towards doing the right thing.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    21. Re:No Surprise... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only moderate democrat is Dennis Kucinich. Every one else is right wing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    22. Re:No Surprise... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The implicit promise was that you could keep your FREEDOM to choose a plan you liked.

      Most people never had the freedom to choose a plan they liked. Either take whatever crappy insurance your employer chooses or nothing at all.

      Point being, now they will no longer have even the crappy coverage they used to have. At least until single payer comes along to save the day.

    23. Re:No Surprise... by yariv · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    24. Re:No Surprise... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It goes deeper than this as well. Imagine the immediate implications of 'guaranteed issue for children'. While it is certainly compassionate to provide insurance automatically to even the most gravely ill child, the charity will stop at the hospital's bills to the insurer. There is an assumption of profit on the part of the insurer, but once that runs out rates will either have to go up or the insurer will have to go out of business.

      Gravely ill, yet previously uninsured children are generally declined today because caring for them costs an inordinate amount of money. Passing a law that bars denying them isn't going to make the bills disappear. All it will do is drive for-profit businesses into reconsidering their goals. Many will either fold, or more likely, will simply stop offering coverage for children, and individuals of any age, whatsoever.

      "Keep your plan" indeed.

    25. Re:No Surprise... by inf4mia · · Score: 2, Informative

      which law was broken by offering jobs to people so they wouldn't run against an incumbent? Seems like a typical political favor to me. Disappointing, but not surprising in the least from a politician.

      Here ya go...

      18 USC 211 - Sec. 211. Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

      "Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States."

      http://vlex.com/vid/acceptance-solicitation-obtain-appointive-19190192

    26. Re:No Surprise... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've got to be kidding me. To quote Jon Stewart, "Democrats... have an 18 vote majority in the Senate. Which is more than George W Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the f*ck he wanted to do. In fact the Democrats have a greater majority than Republicans have had since 1923. But for Democrats apparently a majority of 100 is 60?"

      The Republican party does not vote in lock-step. They have moderate members who will vote against their party. In fact, of Senators in the current term who vote against their party more than 20% of the time, 5 are Republicans (out of 43) and 4 are Democrats (out of 62). In the 2007-2008 Senate when Republicans held a 51:49 majority, the 9 Senators who voted against their party more than 20% of the time were all Republicans.

      The problems the Democrats are having passing anything is because when they effectively got 60 Senate seats, their leadership went into the throes of a collective orgasm and dreamt up every far-left bill they could think of and tried to pass them. Not only did Republicans vote against them, they had to beg and bribe moderate Democrats to support those bills. If a bill you propose is opposed by all Republicans and a significant number of moderate Democrats, most intelligent people would logically conclude that the bill is far too liberal and needs to come back to center to have a chance at passing. Not that there's some right-wing conspiracy to thwart you.

    27. Re:No Surprise... by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Informative

      At no point during the Bush administration did the Republicans have more than 55 votes, yet they pretty much ran the place however they liked. People forget that GWB was successful in every major initiative he attempted prior to September 11 except for expanding the role of faith-based organizations in providing local charity - with an evenly divided Senate and a nine-vote majority in the House.

    28. Re:No Surprise... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, that is the traditional left-right axis. What else do you think "leftist" means?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    29. Re:No Surprise... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhhh...how exactly is this flamebait? Who here doesn't know that Palin was the kiss of death to McCain? I know guys that had never voted for a single Dem that voted Obama because they were scared of President Palin. This is news? Or that Jindal has "foot in mouth" disease? Hell the man tried to refuse the extension for the unemployed in the middle of a recession!

      Hell anybody that has watched the Repub party knows the lunatics are running the asylum right now, that all the fiscal conservatives and small government types have been run out for Neo Cons and teabaggers. We really need a third party, hell maybe even a fourth, because those of us for a smaller government and paying down the deficit frankly don't have a party anymore. Now BOTH parties are for bigger government and less rights to the people, it's like Coke VS Pepsi!

      As for Obama, did we get out of Iraq? Stop renditions? Warrant-less wiretapping? Stop giving out OUR money to failed corps? Then what the hell is the difference between him and Dubya, except for having a D instead of an R? It's like "Hope and Change" /fine print/ We Hope you don't notice the only Change is in your pockets

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Everybody does it... by statusbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
    1. Re:Everybody does it... by Meshach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the point is that Obama pledged to stop this from happening and it hasn't.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Everybody does it... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:Everybody does it... by PatHMV · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Everybody does it... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good for CREW. Most of these partisan advocacy groups play team red / team blue and have to check the roster to decide where they stand on an issue. It is great to see one of them finally standing on principal and holding their own team to the same standard. It would be nice if every "issue advocacy" group would stick to its guns without regard to party affiliation.

    5. Re:Everybody does it... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      You just used more words than the summary to sum up the summary. Why?

    6. Re:Everybody does it... by andy1307 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we've gone from "Hope and Change" to "STFU, everybody does it"?

    7. Re:Everybody does it... by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And?

      Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper campaigned back in 2006 on a platform of "transparency and accountability." Since taking office, he has proceeded to dismantle numerous democratic checks and balances, closed down programs that facilitate public scrutiny, shut down media access to important information, and is now running the most secretive government in Canadian history.

      Politicians lie. They say things to get elected and then do the exact opposite. It's what they do.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:Everybody does it... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but this is "the most transparent administration in history"

      Don't forget that being the best at transparency does not mean being good at something. It just means being less terrible than the other guy(s).

    9. Re:Everybody does it... by calderra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But Palin and Co. were using their emails for business purposes (even if it was more day-to-day stuff, so far as the snoop caught).

    10. Re:Everybody does it... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      But Palin and Co. were using their emails for business purposes (even if it was more day-to-day stuff, so far as the snoop caught).

      I'm not saying your wrong here, but I just checked the images of the emails from way back when and the only thing I could see that even comes close to government business was a letter entitled something along the lines of "Draft Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger / Container Tax", which may or may not have dealt with the business of running Alaska. It could have contained something along the lines of "Dear Arnold, as a citizen of Alaska, I find your container tax to be pure BS!" Who knows. Either way, that's hardly proof of any laws being broken.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    11. Re:Everybody does it... by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which leaves me facing the next election to choose between the candidate who says he'll do things I care about, but won't, and the candidate who says he'll do things I hate, and will.

      Sigh.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    12. Re:Everybody does it... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't Palin's email full of personal stuff and not full of emails from lobbyists and the like offering bribes?

      It's illegal in all 50 states to conduct state business on a Yahoo account:

      In response to similar but separate public records requests, McLeod and Henning this summer received four banker boxes of e-mail and telephone records for two Palin aides: Frank Bailey and Ivy Frye. Henning was operating on behalf of the Valley group Last Frontier Foundation, which lists property rights and public records as among its core issues on its Web site.

      "I think that it's total hypocrisy from what she stood for at the beginning of her campaign," Henning said. "Because she campaigned on open government, and she knew that using a private e-mail account would take it and basically hide stuff that people couldn't see."

      As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.

      "Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.

      "Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.

      The state public records law says these are public documents like any other official government business conducted via snail mail. They are subject to public review via FOI requests, but they're not being kept in any kind of public archive. Asking Palin to surrender and not delete all her relevant Yahoo correspondence on the honor system is pointless.

      Todd Palin had an account used for some interesting state business as well.

    13. Re:Everybody does it... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alaska was and is a bit more liberal with email rules in the Government.

      I work for the Alaska government in a quasi-state agency and we've never even been issued an acceptable use policy document for the Internet.

    14. Re:Everybody does it... by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you show me the email that was state business being sent from Sarah Palin's personal account? Everything I've seen is stuff that didn't belong on the official government email. The email titled "LOOK AT TRIGG!" does not belong on government servers.

      Also, Todd did not work for the State of Alaska, regardless of what is in his email. Had he gotten an official Alaska.gov email address, then you'd have something. Otherwise, Michelle Obama's statement that the government can tell us what to eat could be considered an executive order.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Everybody does it... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      You just used more words than the summary to sum up the summary. Why?

      Yo dawg, I heard you like summaries...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    16. Re:Everybody does it... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you show me the email that was state business being sent from Sarah Palin's personal account?

      You can either file your own FOI request or contact the nonprofit and look through the four boxes of emails they got in theirs. I don't feel like Googling one for you.

      Also, Todd did not work for the State of Alaska, regardless of what is in his email

      Uhhhhhh..... THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. We have no idea who opened Todd's account, but regardless of who was reading it, state business was always BCC-ed to it. And someone who could log into the account was trying to get a state trooper fired for having a messy divorce with Sarah Palin's sister. RTFL.

      Had he gotten an official Alaska.gov email address, then you'd have something. Otherwise, Michelle Obama's statement that the government can tell us what to eat could be considered an executive order.

      More like Michelle Obama trying to get a general demoted for not liking her dress.

    17. Re:Everybody does it... by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Push for major election reforms then we'll talk. In the system we're stuck with voting 3rd party is not in your best interest. While you make your statement and maybe feel good about your vote, of the two candidates who actually stand a chance the one you dislike the most gets one more vote closer to winning.

      Of course this only applies to the few voters in swing states. Everyone else can vote for whatever, it doesn't make a difference either way.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  3. and the Bush administration was yelled at for same by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    ....aaaaaand the Obama administration has ZERO excuse for this, given that the Bush Administration and WH staffers were caught doing exactly the same thing (well, not exactly- in the Bush case, they were discussing firing US DA's for political advantage, and discussing CIA leaks...the list of illegal activity goes on and on.)

    Aside from ignorance not being defense, Obama-ites were obviously not ignorant about it after the last administration were caught doing it!

    Oh, and if you think this only happens in the White House, guess again. Mayor Thomas Menino in Boston had a lackey named Michael J. Kineavy who had his fingers in everything and was deleting emails before the City Hall backup server would get to them. And the City didn't have an email archiving system. And the city tried to claim that it'd cost a bazillion dollars to try and recover from the tapes they did have! More: http://www.google.com/search?q=menino+email

  4. Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With all these lobbyists in Washington, I have always wondered who takes care of the ordinary citizen's interests in that city.

    I guess the better question would be:

    Who is lobbying on behalf of Joe Six Pack and family in Washington? Is there any?

    1. Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? by archer,+the · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always thought that was the job of the Senators and Representatives. I suspect they sometimes forget this, though.

    2. Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well what is the ordinary citizen?

      What is their education, what do they do for a living, what services do they need, what don't they need...

      You say who is fighting for the ordinary citizen's like it is a simple statement. If you are too tough on corporations they cannot operate and move out and kill the economy, if you are too lax they will take over. Every choice has a tradeoff. Lobbyists work for a big slue of sectors including many non-corprate groups, and other groups that you may call the Good Guys...

      Hey if I worked for a Oil company I just may like the Oil Lobby as it is defending work for me as the average joe... But if you don't then they may be the enemy.

      Unfortunately without lobbyists I see politicians swerving to whatever the general population thinks at the time, and then money and resources are put in and by the time it gets going it is dropped as their values change overnight...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? by limaxray · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are a lot actually, starting with the ACLU and the NRA. The People do lobby congress to great success - they just do it as groups in order to pool resources.

      The problem of course is not the lobbying (it is a constitutionally protected right after all), it's the politicians who care more about getting a steak dinner, a Rolex, and a blow job than doing what's best for their constituents and their country.

    4. Re:Who's taking care of ordinary folk's business? by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if Joe is over 55 he has AARP to lobby for (certain aspects of) him. If he carries a gun, he has the NRA. Heck, if he drives a car he may have AAA. So many organizations we do business with and are fundamental to our lives have someone speaking up as lobbyists. Joe Six Pack isn't unrepresented. Maybe he would like his own personal voice, as would every citizen. Can you imagine 300,000,000 lobbyists in DC? They get their individual voice every 2+ years when they vote in various representatives.

  5. Argumentum ad populum fallacy by Benfea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if it is true that all politicians do this, that does not make this right. Archiving and disclosure laws are there for a reason.

  6. In other late-breaking news... by GlennC · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the Sun was seen rising in the East.

    ...bears use the woods as their own personal toilet.

    ...Pope declares "I am a Catholic."

    --
    Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
  7. I give up by ericdano · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
    --
    1. Re:I give up by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might want to pojnt the finger at the right people.

      The Republicans have move to stop ANYTHING coming from the whitehouse.

      over 200 Appoints held up. Sure, a few in key policialt places get a close look, thats norrmal, Over 200? Bullshit.

      When the president has agreed on bills sponsored by republicans, the republicans stop backing it

      When there isn't something they like they filibuster.

      Even when they are dealing with confirming a person they like, they twist all the questions into a political knife that is irrelevant to the confirmation.

      No one knw if Gmail is being used, thats what the investigation is for.

      " This stuff is NOT personal,

      what stuff? again, there is nothing , just an investigation.

      "Obama promised to do things DIFFERENTLY"

      He has. Start paying attention.

      They do not have a hold of both houses. Have you not been paying attention? the Republicans filibuster, and deny almost everything. IN fact, they have denied appointees anonymously. WTF kind of cowardice is that?

      They are doing whatever they can to slow down or stop the government. Watch the debates, read the documents PAY ATTENTION.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I give up by Late+Adopter · · Score: 2, Informative

      This administration has been terrible. All this promise, and then failure.

      That may be a small amount of hyperbole. The Obameter rates Obama still as having fulfilled more of his campaign promise than those he's broken or stalled on. Which isn't to say that "coming through on half the things you promise" is good enough (nor are all promises created equal), but I wouldn't call it failure.

    3. Re:I give up by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All promises aren't equal. If I promise to drink at least 3 glasses of water a day, to exercise for at least 30 minutes every day, and also promise to not embezzle from my employer, keeping the first two but not the third may give me a respectable "promise keeping" percentage, but I would guess my employer would be much happier if I kept only the third and not the first two.

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
  8. Re:Pledge? by ericdano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the funniest and saddest thing is that Video FOX news likes to air of Nancy Pelosi saying to her people that she'd love to share what is in the bill but they need to pass it first.

    That is exactly the problem in Government right now. These HUGE bills that no one knows what they contain.

    I say we vote them ALL out and start over.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  9. Not surprised, and not in a cynical way by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Informative

    To me this is just another example of how much people will try to cling to old ways of doing things and subvert rules that prevent it.

    According to the NYTimes article referenced in TFA that kicked off this whole discussion, indicates that the administration has a policy of posting all White House visits and pressures staff to minimize contact with lobbyists. In response, rather than obey the spirit of those directives, the staff instead meets with lobbyists off the record.

    This is a story older than government, going back to whenever a parent first told their kids not to do something or earlier: someone makes a rule, people impacted by that rule try to find a loophole, the rule is revised, repeat. Government is an inherently iterative process.

    That being said, if doing an investigation speeds up this iteration of the feedback loop, I'm all for it.

  10. Re:define lobbyist... by e2d2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Actually, yeah, he has. by Karunamon · · Score: 5, Informative

    No wharrgarbl like political wharrgarbl, amirite? Read this. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

  12. Re:Pledge? by iLoveLamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many of us would love to vote them all out and start over. Sadly, those who would get voted in would be of the same breed as it takes a lot of money. That money tends to come from the lobbyists. Vote for a Teabagger, get an extreme right wing asshole who no doubt cater to the corporate lobby. Vote for a Green Party member, get an extreme left wing asshole who will no doubt cater to the corporate lobby. What we need is a corporation to lobby for the people. I wish there were money to be made in that.

  13. Wait, a liberals working with republicans? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, I guess politics truely does make strange bed fellows.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  14. Re:and the Bush administration was yelled at for s by Monchanger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The allegations , first reported last week by the New York Times,

    Fixed that for you.

    If one actually bothers to read the original NYT article, one would know it still only talking about allegations. And a limited number of incidents reported by unnamed lobbyists at that. Because there are allegations, CREW called for an official investigation to determine if there is truth to the allegations.

    The bigger issue discussed was that coffee-shops being used as meeting places, which again is neither illegal nor necessarily a sign of corruption. It's not a strange and terrible thing for people to meet outside the office. I'd personally be more worried if they were meeting in a private hotel room rather than a busy coffee shop where they can be overheard by reporters.

    You're right, there's no excuse for this administration to be caught regularly violating official records laws and ethics rules. But it's kind of important to realize they haven't yet. It's sad that so many in the Slashdot crowd aren't capable of seeing the distinction between sensational headlines and reality.

  15. Re:Pledge? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nah, that's a strawman built on a misperception. There are people in both parties who want to make a government that works; it's just they are outnumbered by those who would rather get what they want.

    --
    Qxe4
  16. Re:Pledge? by Thuktun · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  17. rabid progressive here: by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they did this, they should go to jail.
    Bush did it too. Also should have gone to jail.
    (also: White House email backup system has been non-functional since the Clinton era. Bullshit they can't afford to get that working. So fucking illegal. Their communications in doing business on MY behalf, while I'm paying them - is MY lawful property. Do the job right, or go the fuck home.)

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.