White House uses secret memo to fight court order

[Zeebadee]

White House uses secret memo to fight court order - CNN.com

The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public. The Bush administration did not reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall.

You want to see how many times Abramoff visited bush? Sorry, you can't have that info. How about oil company execs dropping in on cheney? Nope, that info is off limits.

More secrecy from king george, in another attempt to shield his activities from any public review. This disgusting worst-in-history president claims full dictatorial powers while at the same time uses every form of deceit to protect himself from any accountability. bush claims the right to read our mail, monitor our emails, listen in on our phone calls, have access to our bank records, monitor all travel, monitor all internet activity, surrepticiously search our homes without warrants or disclosure, in short, he claims the right to know everything any citizen does, says, or thinks, yet he says we have no right to know who gets in to see him in an office and at a job that we directly pay for. Anyone that still thinks this is a free country is simply delusional.

[Jack]

Let's hope that with the coming regime change, these unconstitutional actions will be reversed. Open government is not a weakness.

[Blef]

Well said, Zeebadee.

Isherwood, we will have to wait and see, but I doubt a regime change of such insignificant order, from Republican to Democrat or vice versa, will make any fundamental difference in the War Against Liberty.

[Osborn F Enready]

I second that Blef.

More like a relief guard than a regime change.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: Isherwood Let's hope that with the coming regime change, these unconstitutional actions will be reversed. Open government is not a weakness.

I'm all in favor of open government. Is this truly unconstitutional, however? It may not be traditional, but I bet it's constitutional (i.e., legal), unless you take constitutional to mean "framer's intent," in which case I'll agree with your sentiment.

[Jack]

JohnMK, yeah, I was thinking of the spirit of the Constitution actually.
Blef, I have to agree. I've said myself there's no difference between the two major parties. Sometimes I hope without reason.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zeebadee Anyone that still thinks this is a free country is simply delusional.

I believe you would be neither-less nor-more surprized reading similar materials released to the public, regarding other U.S. governing bodies (including the upcoming ones, and so on).
This is politics.

The difference : previous materials have never been published.
There is not much of aberration, except for dates, names, numbers, subjects, etc.

[Scribbler1]

It's not "politics", Rainbow. It is deliberate withholding of common information, that was open under previous administrations, for the explicit reason of keeping a record of visitors a secret.
You can even argue WHY a visitor log should be a secret but no matter what reason you choose it is still both WRONG and unnecessary. Nobody is demanding tapes of every phone call Bush makes or what is said in private.

I really think we are cooked as a free country. As long as presidents keep getting away with this garbage the day will come, maybe 2-3 administrations from now, where they finally decide to drop the pretense and come right out and say "we OWN you!"

And it was an open book, so to speak, before. Read this. It is a photocopy of a visitor log entry for Abramoff, given to Judicial Watch under the FOIA.

But I suppose that's about it for those things.

[zolo]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I really think we are cooked as a free country.

Sorry to say I have to agree with you.:eek:

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 It is deliberate withholding of common information, that was open under previous administrations, for the explicit reason of keeping a record of visitors a secret. You can even argue WHY a visitor log should be a secret but no matter what reason you choose it is still both WRONG and unnecessary.

Previous administrations along with other supportive political bodies did not deal with so aggressively motivated individuals.

Yes, it is done on a purpose. I am not even trying to argue on that issue, at all. Whether some interested parties have no desire to release any information to the public, it depends of subject(s).

Why "the guests list" got a different priority and/or access ?
I think there are too many bodies interested into none of their concern business, while attempting to use that chronological document for different than originally established purposes.
In other words : use any means to remove Republicans from power, applying any methods to discredit opposite body, regardless of political outcomes.
I think that was the reason for changing "the guests list" status.

It would not surprize me Republicans will attempt to destroy Democrats in the upcoming term. This is politics.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow Previous administrations along with other supportive political bodies did not deal with so aggressively motivated individuals. Yes, it is done on a purpose. I am not even trying to argue on that issue, at all. Whether some interested parties have no desire to release any information to the public, it depends of subject(s).

Did you look at the page I linked? It showed Jack Abramoff WAS a guest, after Bush denied ever meeting him.
This is a blatant attempt to make sure that pesky FOIA doesn't embarrass Bush again.
And that, my friend, is NOT "just politics".

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Did you look at the page I linked? It showed Jack Abramoff WAS a guest, after Bush denied ever meeting him. This is a blatant attempt to make sure that pesky FOIA doesn't embarrass Bush again. And that, my friend, is NOT "just politics".

I believe G.Bush publically admitted J. Abramoff (most likely) visited White House. You expected G.Bush officially confirms those visits ?
If not politics, what is it then ?

[Blef]

Quote by: Rainbow Why "the guests list" got a different priority and/or access ? I think there are too many bodies interested into none of their concern business, while attempting to use that chronological document for different than originally established purposes.

Well, what Clinton and Monica did was nobody's business; it wasn't politics and had nothing to do with running the country. The alleged influence peddling and deal mongering that may (I'm being charitable) have transpired between Abramoff and Bush and other influential government figures is politics, specifically corrupt politics, and is everyone's business.

There is good reason to watch the watchers and other miscreants of the state, you know.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Blef Well, what Clinton and Monica did was nobody's business; it wasn't politics and had nothing to do with running the country. The alleged influence peddling and deal mongering that may (I'm being charitable) have transpired between Abramoff and Bush and other influential government figures is politics, specifically corrupt politics, and is everyone's business. There is good reason to watch the watchers and other miscreants of the state, you know.

What would you say : Monica served as a bait and/or set up and/or payback, for Clinton's negligence in following U.S. Foreign Policy (read : arms trade to China) ?

[Blef]

Quote by: Rainbow What would you say : Monica served as a bait and/or set up and/or payback, for Clinton's negligence in following U.S. Foreign Policy (read : arms trade to China) ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Clinton. I don't like any authoritarian statist, regardless of party.

I do think Americans are addicted to drama and politicians like to play in the mud.