White House Office of Administration Not Subject to FOIA, Says White House 334
An anonymous reader writes with this story at USA Today: The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office. The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law.
Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the kind of "hope and change" I voted for, Mr. President.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither major party supports the country. Vote for a 3rd option.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you could try voting in the primaries this time too. That's the only election that actually scares our lawmakers, so that's where an impact can really be made.
That's the realization Lessig's MAYDAY PAC [mayday.us] recently came to.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fine if voting were a philosophical decision. But it isn't. Not really. It's a game theory decision. You are voting to maximize the benefits to the city/state/nation based on the choices offered. Voting for the perfect third party candidate, when there is no chance that person can win, is not maximizing the benefits of the outcome. Voting for the "least evil" of the candidates who actually stand a chance of winning (and in a general election, the number of candidates is almost always two) will produce the most benefit.
Those people who voted for Nader in 2000 were in effect voting for Bush. Those who voted for Perot in 1992 were in effect voting for Clinton. It has nothing to do with Nader or Perot as candidates, but the mechanics of a winner-take-all, first-over-the-line voting system. Voting for a third party candidate is, for all intents and purposes, voting for the candidate of the Two Party duopoly who is _least_ like the third-party candidate.
Every politician, every PAC, every campaign does everything in its power to game the system, not because they are corrupt or evil, although many are, but because that's how you win. Similarly, voters should spend a little more time considering the actual effects of their votes in addition to the intended effects of their vote. I would join in the call for a better, more mathematically sound, voting system, but that ain't gonna happen.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
WTF? Nobody that voted Nader was sane.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to misunderstand the point.
No one who voted for Nader cared about his sanity - Burning the whole fucking thing down and start over looks a hell of a lot more appealing than yet another four years of the slow erosion of our rights.
We literally have political dissidents seeking asylum in Russia - Really think about that for a minute. Russia. The big enemy (drugs and terrorism and copyright violators and Cuba aside), notorious for its human rights abuses and opaque near-totalitarian government. And our political refugees flee there?
People didn't vote for Nader to vote for Nader. They voted for Nader to vote for "anyone else".
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
We literally have political dissidents seeking asylum in Russia - Really think about that for a minute. Russia.
And we had people hijacking planes to Cuba because they thought they would get welcomed with open arms and treated better than the normal Cuban.
Where do you expect people who make themselves the enemy of a government to go? They can't go anyplace that's friendly to their ex-residence. There's nothing significant about them going to Russia as far as Russia's human rights record goes, it's all about Russia being unlikely to send them back. They may or may not have some idealized view of how they'll be welcomed there, but when you burn enough bridges eventually you are stuck in one place -- even if that place isn't the nicest island on the planet.
And our political refugees flee there?
And theirs flee here. That's part of the definition of the word "refugee". And a lot of other country's "refugees" flee to here, even when they aren't truly refugees, just because this place is better. People keep forgetting that when it comes to talking about how awful the US is. The US doesn't have an illegal emigration problem, for a reason.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The wags would say that if voting could change anything, the politicians would make it illegal.
Actually, I don't really buy that. But, voting only changes something when the electorate is educated and voters take their voting duty seriously. This doesn't happen in the U.S. for a majority of voters. We only need to see who gets elected and their track records to know this.
For every person who is making an informed decision based on their beliefs, and their understanding of the candidates and their positions (and I would guess that the /. audience has more than its share of these), there are several low-information voters who are deciding solely on whose commercial hits all the right notes.
Normally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but there is way too much evidence, given the kinds of polls you see about the level of general knowledge of the average American, to believe that most Americans are making educated decisions on whom to vote for. There are other issues, such as our voting system pretty much forcing a two-party system to arise, but just watching the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of many of our elected officials says a lot. In a better world, a lot of these people would have been laughed off of the ballots.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:4, Informative)
Vote for someone outside of the current two-in-one party system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most transparent..Ahhahaha..Most..hehheahhaaa..Most transparent Admi...cough choke...ROFLMAO! [thehill.com] oh, Fuck It, I can't even say it without laughing.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Funny)
At this point, I have come to the conclusion that Obama has difficulty distinguishing between "transparency" and "invisibility."
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, "most transparent" relative to the past may be true. If you get a D- while all your predecessors got an F, then you have the "best grades so far". Thus, technically he may be correct, even if misleading.
I'm not sure perfect transparency is good thing anyhow. When they tried an open public discussion on the ACA bill, it turned into a useless posing and rant session. People spend more time performing for a sound-bite-sensitive crowd than doing real work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.
I do credit O for trying it.
To give an IT analogy, it would be like a GUI design meeting where one side adamantly wanted a command line interface and thought all GUI's stank.
Fred: "Bob, do you think the button should go on the top or the bottom?"
Bob: "Screw buttons, GUI's are for sissies and encourage OS bloat dependency."
Fred: "Mark, how about you, where should the button go?"
Mark: "I'll tell you where to shove the button! I refuse to participate in the GUI take-over of computers. This will ruin the fabric of computing society and kill IT jobs!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GOP had nothing to do with the ACA. They had no power to speak of at the time. The DNC owns the whole stinking pig fuck. And they no longer have to power to fix/change it. LOL.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Informative)
I believe you may be suffering from ODS.
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
The GOP introduced over 700 amendments to the ACA before it was put to the floor for a vote. Of those, 161 passed. Compared to the 36 Dem submitted amendments that passed.
To claim that the "GOP had nothing to do with the ACA" is verifiably untrue. To further claim that "They had no power to speak of at the time" highlights a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of how the legislative branch of our government works.
-Rick
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that over 700 amendments were still unable to fix it should tell you something. In the end, no Republicans voted for it.
Democrats will often say, well, what's your alternative? When you are standing at the edge of a cliff and one party is contemplating jumping, you should not be discussing different ways of jumping. Perhaps just not jumping would have been the better solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the Republicans had rather a lot to do with the drafting of it, even if none of them voted for it in the end. It went a lot like this:
R: If you remove X, I might vote for it.
Obama: OK, it now doesn't have X.
R: Psyche! Not good enough, sucker. Hahaha! But seriously, if you add Y [wikipedia.org], then I might vote for it.
Obama: OK, it now has Y.
R: OMG! Everybody, come look at Y! That's Death Panels! Obama wants to kill your grandmother!...
Re: (Score:3)
And, I think he will. As in :
"Obama....worst president, ever..."
Seriously, I think he has fully displaced both Bush Jr and Carter for bottom rung.
And he still has almost 2x years to go?!!?
Re: (Score:3)
Due to the so-called "blue dogs", it barely had enough votes to pass.
Does it not bother you that the bill was so unpopular as to necessitate such a strategy?
The long history of failed health-care bills shows that passing such is a very difficult task such that you have to leap on the opportunity when it presents itself or risk getting nothing.
Because, perhaps, those bills are unpopular? Because they only succeed in fixing a little while making other things worse for most people?
But now, we can't bring any improvements to the table. Democrats have their victory and will push back against any changes to their wonderful law. Republicans will not vote for a bill that is anything short of completely repealing the ACA.
Congratulations Obama, you have managed to r
Re: (Score:3)
I remember trying to talk about the Obamacare legislation, before it passed. I would say something to the effect of, "I have a concern about the concept of X, and how it will be put into practice." The
Re: (Score:3)
How can anyone debate a piece of legislation that is so complex it would take (and has taken) years to analyze and understand in a few days?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe there was anything barring people from reading it. I sat down over quite a few evenings at the time reviewing the proposed bill.
The rush where Pelosi and others were pushing for a vote was after the amendments had been completed. The bill was readily available for reading for months before then, and the amendments were available to read, but some individuals attempting to slow the passage down (until after Kennedy was out of the picture) were arguing that we should have delayed the passage u
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't even read it, lol.
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think it was along the lines of "We have to pass it to find out what's in it..."
And that demonstration of abject laziness on the part of the Congresscritters voting on the bill is the fault of Obama, how?
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Informative)
"In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA, "because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority."
The appeals court ruled that the White House was required to archive the e-mails, but not release them under the FOIA. Instead, White House e-mails must be released under the Presidential Records Act — but not until at least five years after the end of the administration."
Nothing to see her folks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not subject to FOIA" is not the same as "we refuse to respond to FOIA requests" .... the Administration is certainly not forbidden from providing more than is required under the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
See "Nixon White House" for a possible reason FOIA requests to this office should be allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a question of what's right, not what's legal, that the OP is talking about. It's hypocritical for an administration that campaigned on being transparent to then engage in this sort of activity, even though what they're doing is perfectly legal. It's like promising to use an investor's money for one thing and then suddenly using it for something else that is perfectly legal but contrary to what you said. Were this administration a corporation, we'd be able to sue them (and pretty much every previous adm
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
those who think the true power browers will ALLOW a 3rd party candidate - you assholes are so out of touch with reality, you are helping to ruin things by giving people false hope.
the only way to fix this is to totally break it and reinvent it.
the current US system WILL NOT ALLOW FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATES. how long will it take you numbskulls to get this into your heads? america is NOT a free nation and those who run things alternate parties to keep us thinking we have a choice.
the last few decades have be
Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score:5, Insightful)
"but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?
The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.
Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to change this, don't waste your time on third parties until the time that third parties can actually win with the amount of time and effort you can put into them. Instead, focus your effort on changing the voting laws in your state to be some form of IRV or proportional representation or some other scheme that actually allows third parties to be elected. Until you have this on the ballot in your state and it is passed, anything you do with respect to third parties will be useless (other than as
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks.
It sounds good but there are still many bridges to cross. While they might be able to get federal monies, that is about the only thing they can count on. As far as a spot in the debates goes those are all run by private business they can do whatever they like. If one of the majors candidates, quietly informs the networks hosting they would likely decline a debate invitation should they discover $3rdParty candidate gets an invite; I am sure that is where it would end.
Different states have differing rules
Re: (Score:3)
"but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?
The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.
Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.
You're focusing on the wrong arena to affect change. Sure, a 3rd party president would deb ground breaking; but the odds are stacked against such an outcome. At the local level, however, things are different.You can elect council members, state representatives, Congressional representatives,and maybe the odd Senator. Do that, and you get noticed. Elect enough and you can hold enough power to decide which party becomes the majority party. Then you can affect change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How am I advocating splitting parties? I'm just pointing out that if you live in a red state, and you don't like the Republicans, your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate is totally wasted. There is zero chance that a Democrat will win the electoral votes in your state if it's a Republican stronghold like any southern or midwestern state. Mississippi is NOT going to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate in 2016, I guarantee it.
So if you live in one of these states (which is most of the
There are no alternatives (Score:2)
The question is, did you learn your lesson? Will you stop supporting the one party Republocrat system next election?
Never supported it in the first place but for better or worse that does not matter. There is nothing I am going to be able to do that will make it go away. Furthermore it's not as if the (theoretical) alternatives are somehow more compelling. Libertarian? Green? There's nothing out there that I think is likely to be meaningfully better even if I could somehow be convinced that a third party somehow had a realistic chance at attaining power.
The ONLY thing that will make our current "two" party system go
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, did you learn your lesson? Will you stop supporting the one party Republocrat system next election?
I voted for the Libertarian candidate last presidential election. Lot of good that did. I think he won maybe 13% of my county, and 1% of my state? The time where parties could just pop up or split off established parties and win passed a good century ago, and the "us vs them" mentality has been so cultured over the past 2 decades that no mainstream politician dares stray too far from the party line lest their career come to an abrupt end because their voter base will turn on them.
Power tests character (Score:2)
This is not the kind of "hope and change" I voted for, Mr. President.
Apparently he forgot the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Re: (Score:3)
Fool you once, shame on him.
Fool you twice, shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fool you once, shame on him. Fool you twice, shame on you.
Or George Bush's take on it [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or to quote George Carlin, "Don't I pay your salary? You're a public servant. Get me a glass of water!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it funny that you ever thought it would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessarily true.
If that letter is a "G" or really anything besides "D" or "R", then their goals are likely quite different. But no one will vote for anyone without a "D" or "R" so I guess we'll never know for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth he won a second term? I get it, the other guys where far worse... .
The thing is, we knew how bad Obama was by the second term. I really don't believe Romney would have been worse. I really don't see how he could be.
Obama has done everything that people hated Bush for and more.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't mind me asking, exactly what changws to the world were you expecting? He certainly has changed the world or more likely sat back and watched it change with the lead from behind when i'm not golfing foreign policy.
I hope you brought your toga... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Around 60 AD?
Re: (Score:2)
Revolts, fires, Nero fiddling...pretty much.
Re: (Score:2)
Because were living in the Roman Empire.
Vote Caligula for 2016
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck the poor!
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up, Pseudolus.
Most transparent Admn ever.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well....
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't believe a single thing he said.
I knew he would be essentially like a republican, just less 'christ-y' (at least in public). the war on non-christians and women and minorities did take a bit of a back seat the last 2 terms. it would have been much worse under R guidance, I'm quite sure of that.
but as for the hope and change, I didn't believe that. its impossible since the system is broken and cannot be fixed without a total re-do (which no one seems to want in their lifetimes).
you can be sure tha
Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... (Score:5, Insightful)
He isn't "essentially" like a republican, as he has the cover of press. Had this been an actual republican, the press would be apoplectic over this. So, in a way, he is worse that republicans.
And the same can be said for HRC and her email scandal. There is an increased deference given to anybody with a (D) after their name.
So, why would you vote for (D)? Because they say things in ways that make you feel good, while screwing you like an (R)?
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/... [cnn.com]
http://www.salon.com/2007/04/1... [salon.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
The media will do anything that gets them readers. Morals, ethics, and political leanings have nothing to do with it. The all-mighty dollar crosses all political boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
you can be sure that the medical MJ movement would have been totally stalled if an R was in office
The word "medical" has nothing to do with it and never did. The medical thing is a fig leaf to cover people wanting to get high. It's remarkable how many 20 year old glaucoma patients we suddenly have. I have NO problem with someone wanting to smoke weed but the notion that for 99.999% of people it has anything to do with a legitimate medical condition is just ludicrous. I'd be more supportive if they would drop the insulting pretense that it has anything to do with medicine because it doesn't and never
Re: (Score:2)
Stress is a medical condition that was explicitly mentioned in Prop 215.
Re: (Score:3)
There is? I sure don't see one. I see a war *about* the programmed divisiveness of identity politics, with different sides choosing the identity politics they want to fight for. Not too many damn people fighting against it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Working with people = compromise. The government has too many people that refuse to give the other side absolutely anything because they think it makes themselves appear weak or not a true Republican/Democrat
Fixed that for you. Refusing to budge on any point isn't compromise, and holding the daily operation of the government and the financial stability of the economy hostage isn't negotiation-it's just plain old blackmail.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell no. Continue to vote for girdlock. It is the best outcome available.
Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... (Score:5, Insightful)
His election was the triumph of marketing over substance!
Nothing to hide, Heh! (Score:2, Insightful)
What ugly things are you trying to hide Mr. President?
The fact that you are no longer represent people of this country?
The fact that your actions are exact opposite of your rhetoric claims?
Is it an attempt to remove any possibility for people to learn and act,
provided they will wake up one day?
Makes me wonder ....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
true as that maybe, it still flies in the face of the transparent govt. platform President Obama ran upon.
the courts have also ruled that the corporations are citizens... again just because the ruling says so doesn't make it right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds reasonable to me (Score:2)
Radar and laser don't apply to me if I'm speeding. Right? Oh.
FCC rules don't apply to me using interesting hardware to intercept cellphone traffic. Right? Oh.
Regulations don't apply to me if I want to sell firearms to people in Mexico. Right? Oh.
Yep, this seems par for the course. We peasants can go fuck ourselves while the ruling class does what they please. I mean we can't expect them to reveal the horrific things that are going on to protect corporate trade secrets. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering the FOIA act does not apply to the White House, I don't know why you are whining.
Because Obama promised an extremely transparent administration. Hiding behind the limitations of FOIA scope is a dick move, considering his promises.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one arm of the federal gov't empowering another. The judicial wolf pack approved the Whitehouse wolf packs choice of mutton for dinner. Political sheep hail victory by 'their' pack, not realizing what being invited to mutton dinner means. (to paraphrase 'tyranny is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's f
Transparency and Open Government (Score:2, Funny)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment [whitehouse.gov]
Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effective
Most transparent government ever (Score:3, Interesting)
am I right guys?
Regulations Are Great (Score:3)
Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.
We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.
Clear, concise law at that. Not 2,000+ pages of crap nobody has read.
backstory (Score:3)
During the McCarthy hearings, this was a primary bone of contention between McCarthy and Eisenhower (who, despite both being Republicans, personally despised one another). Ike insisted that the president's records, and those of the executive branch, could NOT be subpoena'd for McCarthy's hearings.
When the courts tended toward finding that the PRESIDENT's correspondence and files were sacrosanct by the separation of powers rules*, this didn't apply to the State Dept records, so Ike had the State Dept file cabinets physically moved to the Oval Office.
McCarthy, hinting that the President was doing this because he might have something embarrassing in the files, had finally crossed the line by maligning a figure of such public reverence that the public couldn't tolerate it. Logically, he was perfectly correct; it seems unreasonable that Ike would have gone to such lengths to simply defend a presidential prerogative on principle alone, but then again his personal enmity for McCarthy likely played a role as well.
*final curious appendix to this story: one of the Junior Congressmen working for McCarthy, who saw how the courts went to the mat to defend the IRONCLAD sanctity of Ike's files from Congressional snooping would later find that such precedents were little defense in protecting his own files, Mr Richard Nixon.
Re:As president, I support a transparent governmen (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fine. (Score:5, Informative)
The White House is required to archive e-mails and release them under the Presidential Records Act; not until at least five years after the end of the administration.
So the sky is not falling.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.
So you're saying his campaign promises were implicitly predicated on Republicans having only a super-minority in Congress?
Re: (Score:3)
More of the same (Score:3)
Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.
Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.
Re:A final admission of defeat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Blaming Republicans is just an excuse for people with a short memory, their actions are not unprecedented or even the worst ever.....Clinton got it even worse, he actually was impeached. Yet Clinton still got things done.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton got it even worse, he actually was impeached. Yet Clinton still got things done.
Yeah. Bad things. I'm glad the Republicans tied his hands as well as they did - we would have had even more laws screwing ordinary people if he hadn't been impeached. When are the R's going to figure out the Clintons are the best politicians the R's could have in office to advance their corporate agenda? Hell, when are the D's going to figure out the same thing? Maybe that's why I'm an S. And proud to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.
So those 2 years where he had a Democratic majority on Congress and refused to try and pass anything never happened? He could have passed Obamacare or his immigration reforms then, but he didn't because he was more worried about protecting fellow Democrats coming up for election.
Re: (Score:2)
He did pass obamacare then.
Think about the priorities that reflects. The nation is circling the drain, on the verge of bankruptcy, all they can think to do spend more money and lock future admins in!
Re: (Score:2)
the decision to make Office of Administration less transparent is entirely on the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if there was, you'd already know all about this matter if you were paying any attention at all to The Fair & Balanced Network(tm) Fox News, instead of these here slashdots. Just trust me on this, okay? Here, let me help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Afo... [lmgtfy.com]
Unless somehow, amazingly, Slashdot managed to scoop the very motivated Fox News, of course. I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
let me check with Hilary and see if she has some records of those emails