Obama blocks list of visitors to White House: Taking Bush's position, request for logs denied

[Better Believe It]

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
msnbc.com
June 16, 2009

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.
"We are deeply disappointed," said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, "that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration."

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, "such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

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.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house

[BobRossi]

1. Queue the apologists.

Man that Kool-Aid tastes good. ><

[solstice]

14. ROFL.

[tridim]

2. Let's see how many times we can post the same article this morning

What are we up to, about 20 now?

[Better Believe It]

5. I didn't see it posted anywhere else. Are you monitoring posts?

[incapsulated]

7. I just saw it for the first time, lost in sea of Letterman and Maher threads

Which is more relevant?

[QC]

9. Do you have anything to say about the article itself? n/t

[tridim]

12. Not really, but it certainly sounds like really bad news on the surface...

but my guess is that there is much more (or much less) to the story. It has happened before.

Crow has and will continue to be served many times during the next 3+ years.

My complaint is that this same story (from different sources) has been posted MANY times this morning, each complete with a generic bash Obama bent in the subject line.

[AspenRose]

3. This isn't good.

[incapsulated]

4. Oh, so *this* is what that other thread was about

Well, you know, when a President seizes power and privileges it's kinda hard to take them back. That's why the office is more powerful all the time.

That's why the only one argument for impeachment, that it would assure that those powers would not continue unchecked, made sense to me, given the near impossibility of it at the time.

[kenny blankenship]

6. I criticized Bush about a lot of things, but I always said Dubya got Transparency juuuust right.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Well considering that Obama is being criticized for flying AF1 to Chicago to speak to the AMA,

giving out the list of folks coming in for interviews would provide us with soooo much more information to which to bash him with! :eyes:

Cause that is all that would happen. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8472976&mesg_id=8472976

[masuki bance]

22. The info could be used to criticize Obama?

Then it is perfectly justifiable to block access.



/s

[KansDem]

10. I don't know about this...

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records... I thought the White House was the "people's house." :shrug:

I think we have a right to know who's been going in and out of there in the daily operation of the People's Business...

[Ninga]

11. Anything that raises questions that aren't readily answered, isn't good. I would

appreciate hearing what Gibbs has to say about this.

The voting public was promised transparency, and if this issue is not considered transparency worthy, then I want to hear from the administration the argument why it isn't, and want to hear them defend their decision.

[AspenRose]

17. Yes.

[solstice]

13. What is Obama trying to hide? Oh, and there is NO excuse for this one, either.

Obama's obsession with secrecy is rivaling that of Bush's.

[merh]

15. There is no legitimate reason to block this information

That is our house he is living in.

[greguganus]

16. Next step is to put up the partition in front of the WH entrance like boosh did. n/t

[LWolf]

18. It's the "new level of transparency." nt

[dsc]

19. so much for rule of law and only doing what the law required

I guess some laws matter more than others.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. I have mixed feelings about this...

On one hand, we should know when our elected officials meet with a lobbyist. On the other hand, I don't exactly what the Republicans in congress to know precisely who the President and his staff meets with and when as that might tip them off as to the White House's strategy to get any number of bills passed.

[incapsulated]

21. That's the price you pay in a democracy

This is a Bush Abuse of Power that he wants to continue.

You may not have a problem with it now, wait until the next Republican is in office.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Congress should be held to the same standard then...

Everybody who meets with a member of congress or a staffer should be public information.

[incapsulated]

26. I agree, however...

You do not move the ball forward on transparency by repealing it where it formally existed.

[nichomachus]

30. I'll go one further

Every time a member of Congress speaks or votes on an issue, they should have to disclose which groups or corporations who are related to that issue donated money to them.

FInancial columnists and other writers are required to do this. Before they give advice or make statements about companies, they have to tell what their relationship to that company is.

While we're on the subject, your doctor should have to reveal what drug companies or medical equipment companies they hold stock in and what freebies they receive from which companies. For example, it's not unusual for an MRI facility to be owned by a group of doctors. So, it's no surprise when certain doctors "need" to do an MRI for anything.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I'm fine with all of that, although it isn't my main focus

My point is that the politics of the Democratic Party are conducted from the White House. The politics of the Republican Party are conducted from Boehner and McConnell's offices. If Obama has to be transparent then Boehner and McConnell should have to be as well.

[nichomachus]

32. I agree -- I just got on a rant

;-)

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Cheney's Energy Task Force Redux

nt

[avaistheone1]

24. Just keep in mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8&feature=related

[Hutzpa]

25. We have here another SamCooke moment

have a it boy...two for the day already.

[rudy23]

27. But, but, he doesn't have TIME to unblock the list

See, it's all about TIME. He hasn't had TIME to not take the Bush stance on every major crime and coverup from the last 8 years.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. This is stupid and outrageous

They should release the logs immediately.

Our house.

[PopSixSquish]

33. Please Everybody Stop and Think a Minute

This is a Secret Service decision. Remember them? They have never released these records just as they do not discuss security details. The WH has already said that they are reviewing the policy at the request of a judge.

But don't let the actual facts get in the way of a good outrage...

[Better Believe It]

34. Thanks for the info: Link please!

"The WH has already said that they are reviewing the policy at the request of a judge."

Link please.

[AZBlue]

35. So what?

Didn't care when Bush did it either.

[HughMoran]

36. Top of the Greatest wasn't good enough for you?

:eyes: