Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Liberal Watchdog Questions White House Gmail Use

Posted by timothy on from the it-cannot-be-it-must-not-be dept.

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."

38 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 MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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".

    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

  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 andy1307 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    6. 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).

    7. 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
    8. 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.
  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

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  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 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.
    2. 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.

  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. 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 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.
  7. 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!
    --
  8. 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.

  9. 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/

  10. 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.