Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 12, 2013, 12:27:02 PM
-
Transparency?
Obama Meets With Reporters In Off-Record Session
Posted: 06/11/2013
In a rare move, President Obama held an off-the-record with reporters on Monday.
Journalists from news outlets, including The Huffington Post, showed up expecting an off-the-record session with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, BuzzFeed reported. Obama's attendance at the meeting was unannounced.
The attendees and discussion were not reported, and BuzzFeed said reporters were "loathe to discuss" the meeting given its off-the-record nature.
Monday's meeting came as the Obama administration dealt with yet another controversy. The White House came under fire last week after the NSA's secret surveillance programs were leaked to the Guardian and the Washington Post. Those leaks came on the heels of revelations about the DOJ's secret investigations into the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen, as well as the IRS' targeting of conservative groups.
The session was Obama's latest attempt to "placate" reporters, BuzzFeed said. The White House press corps peppered press secretary Jay Carney with questions about Edward Snowden, who revealed himself as the NSA source, on Monday. Carney remained fairly tight-lipped, saying that he could not comment on an ongoing investigation.
Similarly, Obama met with White House reporters off-the-record in February, after they complained about lack of access to the president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/obama-reporters-off-record_n_3423513.html
-
Bush did the same thing as I'm sure have other POTUS's
-
Bush did the same thing as I'm sure have other POTUS's
LOL - Bush is the barometer of what is acceptable now considering you clowns attacked him for 8 years?
I thought O-TWINK was for CHANGE?
-
Bush did it, Bush's fault....mating call of the libby. ::)
there is no "fault"
it's not uncommon or something unique about Obama
-
Bwahahaha! Hope and change people. :)
-
Bwahahaha! Hope and change people. :)
yeah, because no POTUS's every have ANYTHING in common
fuck, I heard a rumor that Obama is living in the White House
-
yeah, because no POTUS's every have ANYTHING in common
fuck, I heard a rumor that Obama is living in the White House
correction - Obama is GRIFTING and PILFERING in the WH
-
Bush did the same thing as I'm sure have other POTUS's
Was one of Bush's main campaigning points the necessity of having a transparent administration? In a few interviews, Obama claimed he had the most transparent administration.
You find a video or an article where Bush claimed he would CHANGE Washington by being transparent and you will have a point. Otherwise, bringing up Bush doesn't even help your argument.
-
Bush did it, Bush's fault....mating call of the libby. ::)
Yep, standard mantra...Bush did it! ::)
-
Was one of Bush's main campaigning points the necessity of having a transparent administration? In a few interviews, Obama claimed he had the most transparent administration.
You find a video or an article where Bush claimed he would CHANGE Washington by being transparent and you will have a point. Otherwise, bringing up Bush doesn't even help your argument.
I said Bush and OTHER POTUS's
do you think every single thing that Obama does is going to be open to full public view?
-
LMFAO "bush did it"
-
I said Bush and OTHER POTUS's
do you think every single thing that Obama does is going to be open to full public view?
straw do you feel that obama has lived up to his promise to be the most transparant admin ever?
-
Bush did it, Bush's fault....mating call of the libby. ::)
I did a little test where I would watch Rachel Maddow until she mentioned George Bush and rarely did I ever get past 5 minutes into the program.
It's amazing the lengths liberals will go to make excuses for this buffoon.
-
::)
Obama to Discuss Syria and Data Collection – Finally
by Keith Koffler on June 17, 2013
President Obama will at last discuss Syria and the secret tracking of U.S. telephone records – big issues that both required Rose Garden appearances and quizzing from White House reporters but instead will get late-night treatment and the gentle questioning of Charlie Rose.
Obama will appear on Rose’s eponymous show, a low-profile approach since most people who have to work will miss it because it’s generally airs at 11 pm. Now, I understand that not many people in the Obama economy have jobs, but one would still think the president would opt for speaking about such important matters earlier in the day, when everyone – employed or not – could at least catch it on the early evening or prime time news shows.
Rose will provide Obama plenty of time to explain his decisions without subjecting him to the kind of intensive questioning the issues deserve, because while Charlie is a good interviewer, he’s a prober and not a griller.
Remarkably, Obama has only addressed the telephone and data mining scandals once, during a brief press conference nine days ago. And even more remarkably, he has not made any public statement at all about his decision to join militarily into the conflict in Syria by arming the rebels there.
But he did have time for a round of golf Saturday.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/
-
straw do you feel that obama has lived up to his promise to be the most transparant admin ever?
I recall him promise transparency but I don't specifically recall him saying he would be "the most transparent administration ever"
can you post that quote
-
I recall him promise transparency but I don't specifically recall him saying he would be "the most transparent administration ever"
can you post that quote
LMFAO!!!
-
President Obama on Thursday hailed his administration for its transparency.
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said during a Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283335-obama-this-is-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history#ixzz2WXPjCniv
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on
-
Obama: "This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html
-
Obama: "This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html
Is this the same administration that supplies certain department heads with 3rd party, secure emails so they can completely avoid having to honor FOIA requests?
That administration?
-
Obama: "This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html
Obama is worse than Bush on this issue.
-
The most transparent administration in American history at it again. Stay tuned for your new liberal talking points.
Obama Holds Off-The-Record Meeting with MSNBC Hosts, Fox News' Juan Williams
"I can tell you they are in full fight mode over the Affordable Healthcare Act right now."
11.21.2013 Truth Revolt
News’ Chief White House correspondent Ed Henry reported on Thursday that several leftist journalists received special invites to the West Wing today:
This is hardly the first time that the White House has invited certain journalists to hear the President’s point of view on current events. In October, Obama had an off-the-record meeting with The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, the Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot, National Review’s Washington editor Robert Costa, former CNN co-host Kathleen Parker, and Byron York of the Washington Examiner. In May, the White House had a “deep background” session on Benghazi with a special group of reporters. In September, Obama had another off-the-record meeting with journalists on Syria.
According to Juan Williams, who attended today’s off-the-record meet-up about Obamacare:
I met with other senior officials at the White House, I can tell you they are in full fight mode over the Affordable Healthcare Act right now. What you hear from these senior officials is they’re concerned about what happened with insurance companies; they wish the insurance companies hadn’t sent out the cancellation notices; and if they had, that they had simply call them renewals. They feel as if they had a major systems failure, a major management failure, and they’re trying to get back on track….There is frustration, that’s clear from everybody who I was talking to this morning at the White House.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-holds-record-meeting-msnbc-hosts-fox-news-juan-williams
-
Obama is worse than Bush on this issue.
He's a 1000x worse than Bush on ANY issue.
-
actually, this admin IS the most transparent in history - not to the credit of obama, but rather to the credit of whistleblowers, wikileaks, and the prevalence of the internet.
obama's been just as secretive as the last guy... but it's a lot harder to keep secrets in 2013 than it was in 1993 or 2003. The web has changed everything. Obama promised transparency and didn't deliver it - but others have.
-
LOL - Bush is the barometer of what is acceptable now considering you clowns attacked him for 8 years?
I thought O-TWINK was for CHANGE?
HEHEHEHEHE!!
This is what is hilarious about these dumb libtards. Do they even hear themselves speak or repeat to themselves what they are about to post?
Libtards presented Obama as the ANTI-BUSH. Why don't they understand that stating Bush did the same thing doesn't help their argument?
-
Obama: "This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html
Oh, now you did it.
Obamatheclown: "we have kept that promise"
-
Obama is worse than Bush on this issue.
Haha even whork agrees!
-
Straw owned beyond belief ;D
-
Does anybody else see it as a little concerning that a President and his admin feel the need to go "in full fight mode" against other citizens of his country who call him out on his lies? And who blames THEM for it all blowing up on him? It's not enough to blame Bush after 6 years and be at war with current Republicans, the Tea Party, etc. He's now blaming the media, the insurance companies he seduced, and even doctors. Has he officially declared civil war yet? Is he going to sick the IRS on all them too?
-
Excerpt of interview with Jill Abramson of the NY Times:
Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media?
Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as "How secretive is this White House?" which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush's first term.
I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It's on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.
And do you think this comes directly from the president?
I would think that it would have to. I don't know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we'd know that at this point.
So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.
Absolutely.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/talk-to-al-jazeera/interviews-and-more/2014/1/21/jill-abramson-talkstojohnseigenthaler.html
-
He's a 1000x worse than Bush on ANY issue.
Get real.
Thousands of dead US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis would disagree with you if they could.
-
Get real.
Thousands of dead US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis would disagree with you if they could.
We have had thousands of dead soldiers since CHOOMbama has been prez. F Him. Hoping he gets a heart attack
-
We have had thousands of dead soldiers since CHOOMbama has been prez. F Him. Hoping he gets a heart attack
And somehow that means that Obama is 1000 times worse than Bush on the issue? C'mon, that seems wacky.
-
And somehow that means that Obama is 1000 times worse than Bush on the issue? C'mon, that seems wacky.
To me there is little difference between the two policy wise. But as a person - THUGbama is 10,000 worse
-
And somehow that means that Obama is 1000 times worse than Bush on the issue? C'mon, that seems wacky.
"As a person"?
All that matters is the policy a president gives us. I'd rather have a total prick that serves the american people, than a "nice guy" that just lets his generals/advisers.
Some of the most successful/productive business & govt leaders are total Type A pricks that just get shit done. Heck, the best QBs are the ones that will shove their receivers' faces in the dirt when they miss a route.
-
WH Press Corps Protests Blocked Access
by KEITH KOFFLER on JULY 22, 2014
The White House press corps today formally protested a White House decision to bar reporters from an event featuring President Obama and the surviving members of the Apollo 11 moon mission, a gathering that would have naturally lent itself to wide coverage.
Obama met with Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins to mark the 45th anniversary of the mission. Neil Armstrong died in 2012.
The protest was lodged by Major Garrett of CBS, who is an officer of the White House Correspondents’ Association.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the problem was that Obama “has a very busy schedule.”
Really? A busy schedule? This president?
ABC White House reporter Jonathan Karl smelled a rat.
“Couldn’t he have been maybe five minutes later for the fundraiser out in Seattle?” Karl wondered, referring to Obama’s trip out West today. “I find that explanation a little hard to believe.”
By which he meant it was a lot hard to believe. The press corps gets shoveled in and out of these events and it takes no more than a few minutes.
Earnest disingenuously threw in a jibe – right out of the Jay Carney playbook – about the press corps complaining it didn’t get enough time during such events, known as “pool sprays.” Karl responded that the complaints centered on getting “a couple of minutes” instead of a few seconds to see the president.
Karl posited another explanation:
“Is it because some of those Apollo astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, shortly before he died, going to Congress – was very critical of this president for the way he has handled the space program?”
Earnest was appalled. “Absolutely not!” he said.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/07/22/wh-press-corps-protests-blocked-access/
-
They all voted for him - no one to blame but themselves
-
the conservative posters on this board are too hard on Obama. that's a fact. if anyone disputes that you're an idiot.
but the liberal posters really need to take a step back and understand that you don't have to have your lips wrapped around the guys cock every fucking single god damn day. I mean shit come up for some air once in a while. you ARE allowed to disagree with someone you voted for. its OK. it doesn't make you a hypocrite or wrong for voting for him. jeez.
-
I recall him promise transparency but I don't specifically recall him saying he would be "the most transparent administration ever"
can you post that quote
Seriously? ::)
-
Fox News Poll: Obama White House most transparent ever? Hardly!
By Dana Blanton
Published July 23, 2014
FoxNews.com
Earlier this month the Obama administration repeated its claim that it is the most transparent administration in history. Ever. Period.
Most voters disagree.
According to the latest Fox News national poll, more than two-thirds -- 68 percent -- say no, this White House is not the most open and transparent.
Click here for the poll results.
The new poll, released Wednesday, finds that just 28 percent of voters agree with the administration’s characterization that it’s good at sharing information.
Even Democrats have somewhat mixed views: 51 percent say Obama is the most transparent president, yet a sizable 44 percent minority sees it differently.
Almost all Republicans (93 percent) and a large majority of independents (77 percent) say this White House isn’t the most open and clear.
A Fox News Poll conducted in May 2014 found that while 27 percent of voters think the Obama presidency has been more transparent than previous ones, 34 percent think it has been less open and another 38 percent say it has been about the same as others.
Meanwhile, opinions split over whether Barack Obama is honest and trustworthy: while 48 percent of voters say yes, a record-high 50 percent say no.
In December, a record-low 45 percent said Obama was honest.
Most Democrats think Obama is honest (79 percent), while most Republicans (84 percent) and over half of independents (59 percent) disagree.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,057 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 20-22, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/23/fox-news-poll-obama-white-house-most-transparent-ever-hardly/
-
-
the conservative posters on this board are too hard on Obama. that's a fact. if anyone disputes that you're an idiot.
but the liberal posters really need to take a step back and understand that you don't have to have your lips wrapped around the guys cock every fucking single god damn day. I mean shit come up for some air once in a while. you ARE allowed to disagree with someone you voted for. its OK. it doesn't make you a hypocrite or wrong for voting for him. jeez.
Didnt whork just do what you are suggesting? He said Obama was worse then Bush on this Issue, that's called nuance, the ability to see grayscale, to systemize and understand context. The right wing nuts on this board think he has done nothing right, that he is a muslim etc etc. it's absurd, anyone on the left doesn't have a fucking chance to respond to all the fucking crazyness, copy and pasted article after article.
-
When is all this Hope and Change supposed to take place?
-
Didnt whork just do what you are suggesting? He said Obama was worse then Bush on this Issue, that's called nuance, the ability to see grayscale, to systemize and understand context. The right wing nuts on this board think he has done nothing right, that he is a muslim etc etc. it's absurd, anyone on the left doesn't have a fucking chance to respond to all the fucking crazyness, copy and pasted article after article.
Name one thing Choombama has done we should applaud other than being a bi muslim doper commie? :D
-
When is all this Hope and Change supposed to take place?
January 2017.
-
January 2017.
so you really think Hilary will change things? That's optimistic.
-
January 2017.
It's strange because back in '09 all you would hear about were hyping up of Obama's super awesome foreign policy, high tech energy plans and economy strategies, Hope and Change etc etc and nowadays it seems like all they want to talk about is George W. Bush.
WTH happened?? ???
-
It's strange because back in '09 all you would hear about were hyping up of Obama's super awesome foreign policy, high tech energy plans and economy strategies, Hope and Change etc etc and nowadays it seems like all they want to talk about is George W. Bush.
WTH happened?? ???
Reality
-
It's strange because back in '09 all you would hear about were hyping up of Obama's super awesome foreign policy, high tech energy plans and economy strategies, Hope and Change etc etc and nowadays it seems like all they want to talk about is George W. Bush.
WTH happened?? ???
I called it, during the campaign i said to my father (an avid Obama voter at the time)
"This guy is a fucking snake, all hes done is given buzz words and feel good campaign slogans.... and hes not given a single actual plan on how hes going to change anything. He talks in generalities, he speaks of ideals, but the man hsnt actually given anyone any hard, real olans or ideas to accomplish anything. Hes just telling you guys what you want to hear"
Of course dad launched into festival of republican/bush hate and another republican would destroy the country and hated the middle class, so i just said "Ok dad, see how well that works out for you."
Hes so disenchanted now that i dont even have to say anything.
-
I called it, during the campaign i said to my father (an avid Obama voter at the time)
"This guy is a fucking snake, all hes done is given buzz words and feel good campaign slogans.... and hes not given a single actual plan on how hes going to change anything. He talks in generalities, he speaks of ideals, but the man hsnt actually given anyone any hard, real olans or ideas to accomplish anything. Hes just telling you guys what you want to hear"
Of course dad launched into festival of republican/bush hate and another republican would destroy the country and hated the middle class, so i just said "Ok dad, see how well that works out for you."
Hes so disenchanted now that i dont even have to say anything.
Nothing drives the fact home more than a slow, methodical 6 year type of grind where the fact that their candidate was a horrible choice is reinforced on a daily basis.
But at least he is showing the emotion of disenchantment. Some of these guys would jump off a bridge for Obama it seems.
Reality
That is why you induce so many meltdowns on here. Some of these guys will write multi-paragraph essays to try to dance around the fact that Obama is a complete failure and you will make more of a statement in a single word. :D
-
so you really think Hilary will change things? That's optimistic.
I actually seen a minivan yesterday that had an "Obama - Biden" bumper sticker on one side and a "Hillary 2016 - Change you really can believe in" on the other.
-
Nothing drives the fact home more than a slow, methodical 6 year type of grind where the fact that their candidate was a horrible choice is reinforced on a daily basis.
But at least he is showing the emotion of disenchantment. Some of these guys would jump off a bridge for Obama it seems.
That is why you induce so many meltdowns on here. Some of these guys will write multi-paragraph essays to try to dance around the fact that Obama is a complete failure and you will make more of a statement in a single word. :D
;)
-
The most transparent administration in history. ::)
USA Today’s Susan Page: Obama administration most ‘dangerous’ to media in history
By Erik Wemple October 27, 2014
At some point, a compendium of condemnations against the Obama administration’s record of media transparency (actually, opacity) must be assembled. Notable quotations in this vein come from former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who said, “It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering”; New York Times reporter James Risen, who said, “I think Obama hates the press”; and CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, who said, “This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.”
USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page has added a sharper edge to this set of knives. Speaking Saturday at a White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) seminar, Page called the current White House not only “more restrictive” but also “more dangerous” to the press than any other in history, a clear reference to the Obama administration’s leak investigations and its naming of Fox News’s James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a violation of the Espionage Act.
The WHCA convened the event both to strategize over how to open up the byways of the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history, as well as to compare war stories on the many ways in which it is not. Peter Baker, the veteran Washington reporter from the New York Times, provided perhaps the best instance of White House-administered madness. In covering a breaking story recently, Baker received a note from a White House handler indicating that President Obama had been briefed on the matter in question.
That information came to Baker “on background.” The gist: Not from me — a meeting has occurred..
Other gripes: Correspondents took aim at large-scale “deep background” briefings — attended by up to 40-odd reporters — at which ground rules specify no names for the officials in attendance and no quotations of anything they say. ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl spoke of covering the Boston Marathon bombings. As the story developed, Karl noted that the White House wasn’t giving out any information at all. So he went around it and found out that the feds were sending their high-value interrogation team to Boston. “No way I would have gotten that out of the White House,” said Karl.
Bloomberg White House correspondent Margaret Talev noted how the White House stopped giving details on the fine wines served at state dinners, an opaque measure that she exposed in this story. In pursuing the piece, said Talev, she got the runaround from White House press officials, making her “so mad at them.” Over the course of a few weeks, she had to become, in essence, a wine correspondent.
Saturday was an appropriate moment to air such grievances. The day before, President Obama had opened the White House doors to Nina Pham, the Texas nurse who had just completed her recovery from Ebola at the National Institutes of Health. Prior to the session, the White House announced that still photographers would be allowed to document the proceedings. But print reporters and TV cameras would be out in the cold. At a briefing with White House press secretary Josh Earnest, Karl asked why. Earnest responded that “many of you did have the opportunity to see [Pham] deliver remarks at the NIH upon her departure from the hospital.”
Karl: “That’s not answering the question. Why was this decision made?”
Earnest: “Because reporters did have the opportunity to see her speak already.” Also, the press secretary said that neither President Obama nor Pham planned on making any comments at the event. Taken together, those explanations amount to a lump of nothing.
Talev said Saturday that it was “ridiculous” the White House didn’t provide full media access to the Pham-Obama meeting. In a Friday afternoon chat with the Erik Wemple Blog, recently retired ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton struggled to fathom the rationale for restricting access, given that the White House has been aggressive in sending the message that it’s fighting Ebola: “She’s been in government medical care for the last how many days?” notes Compton. “And she walks out unexpectedly looking terrific — why wouldn’t you want the world to see that the U.S. is doing what the White House has said? So today makes no sense to me.”
Yet there’s more texture to this access question. Last November, a large group of news organizations sent a letter to the White House protesting limited access for their photographers at newsworthy events involving the president. “The restrictions imposed by the White House on photographers covering these events, followed by the routine release by the White House of photographs made by government employees of these same events, is an arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities. You are, in effect, replacing independent photojournalism with visual press releases,” read the letter, in part.
One such visual press release fell into the laps of the media just last month. Obama met Sept. 16 at the White House with Ebola survivor Kent Brantly, a doctor who had contracted the virus while assisting patients in Liberia. Reporters and photographers weren’t allowed to attend that meeting, leaving news organizations with the option of running a photo from official White House photographer Pete Souza or choosing some other half-measure.
Doug Mills, a New York Times photographer who has been covering White Houses going back to the Reagan administration, says that, to the best of his recollection, the media wasn’t aware of the Brantly meeting until the White House released Souza’s photo. “Obviously we were pretty upset about it,” says Mills, though he noted that there was no firestorm over this episode. After some quiet discussions with others, Mills asked to have a chat with Earnest. “He apologized,” says Mills of Earnest. “He said, ‘We’ll do better,’ and I think that they have honestly tried to do better in every situation. … I think the relationship has gotten stronger, and I think Josh is making a lot of efforts to get us in” to events, says Mills.
Referring to the Pham photo access, Mills says, “I would say that this is a pretty good example of progress.” Christi Parsons, the WHCA’s president, tells the Erik Wemple Blog a similar story — that the White House has “increased” the number of opportunities for still photographers since last year’s protest.
The differing reactions to Pham’s appearance at the White House expose what a headache it is to run the WHCA. Radio, print, broadcast, still photographers — they all have different needs when it comes to access. One of the few things all agree on is that representatives from all media factions be allowed into everything. Which will happen at the same exact time that the government fulfills all pending FOIA requests.
There are other signs of improvement, according to Parsons. The White House is working on a weekly basis with a WHCA liaison to discuss “opportunities for more coverage,” with the result that “there have been several times when we have been able to work new coverage opportunities into the schedule,” she says. WHCA is now working on a set of “objectives” for further access to the White House, and at Saturday’s event there was a bit of fantasizing about a weekly Q&A session with the president himself.
When asked about this stuff, White House spokesman Eric Schultz issued this (on-the-record) response: “We believe in the value of transparency, and that is why we work to provide as much access as we can. That said, the press has a responsibility to always push for more access and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/10/27/usa-todays-susan-page-obama-administration-most-dangerous-to-media-in-history/
-
Sharyl Attkisson Is Just One More Journalist Who Says This Is 'Worst' White House For Press Freedom
The Huffington Post | By Catherine Taibi
Sharyl Attkisson isn't afraid to criticize the Obama administration, because she believes she's just saying what every journalist already knows.
The former CBS News investigative reporter sat down with HuffPost Live on Wednesday to discuss her new book, Stonewalled, which dives into how she claims she was surveilled and heavily monitored while reporting on the White House administration. During the interview, Attkisson said that there is now full "consensus" among the media that the current administration is the "worst White House they have dealt with in recent times for transparency and freedom of the press."
"There's obstruction, delay and obfuscation," she said, citing one example where she just recently received a Freedom of Information request that she said she filed 10 years ago.
Attkisson said that with each administration, the transparency and ability for reporters to do their jobs freely has gotten worse and worse. But while admitting that every administration she has dealt with has been difficult at times, she said that the Obama administration has brought "a different kind of aggression."
Attkisson joins several other prominent journalists and news organizations, including former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who say that this is "the most secretive" and most "dangerous" White House for the press in U.S. history.
Her comments also come just after she told The Hollywood Reporter that an "enemies list" exists under the Obama administration, and that she believes she is a target.
"I kind of assume I’m on a list," she said. "I don’t think I’m the only one."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/sharyl-attkisson-white-house-obama-secretive-huff-post-live_n_6109450.html
-
He is a criminal and traitor - why don't some of you get this yet?
-
Are you liberals going to condemn this lack of transparency and blatant dishonesty?
-
Are you liberals going to condemn this lack of transparency and blatant dishonesty?
The answer is a resounding "no."
-
Ann Compton on Obama: He Launches 'Profanity-Laced' Tirades Against Press
By Scott Whitlock | December 8, 2014 | 12:42 PM EST
According to retired ABC News journalist Ann Compton, Barack Obama launches into "profanity-laced" tirades against the press in off-the-record meetings with reporters. In a C-SPAN interview, Compton also derided the President for leading "the most opaque" administration of "any I have covered."
The journalist, who retired in August after a 40-year career, revealed to C-SPAN's Brian Lamb: "I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals." [MP3 audio here.]
She explained, "And I don't find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record and just give us hell."
After Lamb wondered if the President had a point, she chided, "We cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don't take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they reap what they sow."
Despite Obama's apparent rage against the press, he hasn't had much to complain about. The Media Research Center documented how journalists covered-up his failures and scandals.
Earlier in the hour-long C-SPAN interview, which aired on Sunday night, but was recorded in October, Compton slammed the "opaque" administration:
ANN COMPTON: Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday. He is far less accessible on photo-ops with meetings. Even some meetings on the record, meeting in the Roosevelt room with financial leaders from, from Wall Street or on issues with environmental groups, or with issues with environmental groups, with public opinion leaders, I think most presidents have been far more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day and we almost never get photo-ops.
She added that it's fine for the White House to take its own photographs, but "those same elements should not be blocked from the White House press corps."
Interestingly, on Compton's last day in August, the President called on her for a final question. She chose to ask about the police shooting in Ferguson, not the concerns she expressed to C-SPAN.
(H/T to Heritage's Mike Gonzalez for first noticing Compton's comments and tweeting about them.)
A partial transcript of the October 30 segment is below:
C-SPAN
38:05 in:
ANN COMPTON: Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday. He is far less accessible on photo-ops with meetings. Even some meetings on the record, meeting in the Roosevelt room with financial leaders from, from Wall Street or on issues with environmental groups, or with issues with environmental groups, with public opinion leaders, I think most presidents have been far more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day and we almost never get photo-ops.
I think I went through a time of three or four months where I was never in the Oval Office once on my pool day. Part of this may be that the President feels a little bit on the ropes. His job approval rating is down to 40 percent consistently for the last couple of years since his reelection. He also has his own tools. He is the first president with his own journalistic tools. They've all had photographers. He has his own videographers. He has a newscast on Friday mornings on WhiteHouse.gov. It is anchored by his former deputy, now press secretary, Josh Earnest. I think it is fine if the President of the United States wants to present his own version of what he did all week. Most of it is behind the scenes shots of him with Supreme Court justices and leaders coming in from Wall Street. It is fine that he puts it on the internet and that everybody can see it. Those same elements should not be blocked from the White House press corps.
54 minutes in
[Recounting her experiences dealing with presidents.]
COMPTON: Every president is a human being as well as a president. And I'm often asked for favorite moments. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. George Herbert Walker Bush goes to Camp David and convenes his war cabinet, comes back tot he White House. He stops in front of my camera and says, the Arab world is united against Saddam Hussein. I blurt out, "Mr. President, Arab leaders like King Hussein have flown to Baghdad and embraced him. President Bush barked at me and said, "I can read. What's your question?" The next day, before before he sends American troops to the war, he writes me a letter, saying, he was not pleased with his answers to me. below his signature, GB, is initials, he drew a happy face wearing a frown. Imagine the president of the United States taking a moment in history like that to apologize to the press.
...
55:50
LAMB: So, off of that experience, how many other presidents were that aware of what they said to you and how many just did not pay attention at all and you had no personal reaction from them?
COMPTON: I think most presidents realize – had a personal connection. I don't think they ever -- we were ever in a confrontation-type moment where they felt the need to apologize. I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals. Another where he took us to task for not understanding the limits he has with foreign policy and the way he's dealing with the Middle East and Iraq, and Afghanistan. And I don't find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record and just give us hell.
LAMB: Does he have a point?
COMPTON: From his point of view, he may. But we cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don't take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they get -- they reap what they sow.
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/12/08/ann-compton-obama-he-has-profanity-laced-tirades-against-press#sthash.TYun1wrK.dpuf
-
She was part of the most transparent administration in American history. ::)
Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and AMY CHOZICK
MARCH 3, 2015
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/04/us/04CLINTONwebsub/04CLINTONwebsub-articleLarge-v2.jpg)
Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted an award from Emily’s List on Tuesday night. Her use of a personal email account at the State Department kept a significant amount of her correspondence from investigators and the public. Credit Jabin Botsford/The New York Times
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyShare This Page
WASHINGTON — In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.
But it turns out that that was not everything.
The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.
It was only last month that the House committee appointed to investigate Benghazi was provided with about 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the attacks. That was shortly after Mrs. Clinton turned over, at the State Department’s request, some 50,000 pages of government-related emails that she had kept on her private account.
It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.
In 2013, Nitasha Tiku, then a reporter for Gawker, filed a Freedom of Information Act request, seeking all correspondence on Mrs. Clinton’s private email account between her and Sidney Blumenthal, a close adviser and onetime staff member in the Clinton White House. Some of those emails had already spilled into public view and been reported in the news media. But the State Department told Gawker that it could find no records responsive to the request, Gawker reported.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides on Tuesday sought to play down the significance of her exclusive use of a personal email account for State Department business. But an examination of records requests sent to the department reveals how the practice protected a significant amount of her correspondence from the eyes of investigators and the public.
Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email for her government business is unusual for a high-level official, archive experts have said. Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.
The State Department says it will now search the 50,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided in response to Freedom of Information and congressional requests.
The White House, in its first response to the news, said it frowned on the practice of officials using their personal email accounts.
“What I can tell you is that very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said. “However, when there are situations where personal email accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved consistent with the Federal Records Act.”
But political groups and news organizations said requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton had repeatedly gone unanswered.
In December, The Associated Press said its FOIA requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, the oldest of which was submitted in March 2010, were not answered. In addition to requesting Mrs. Clinton’s schedules, The A.P. asked for correspondence related to Huma Abedin’s special arrangement to serve as a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton and consult for private clients. “We have not received any documents yet, despite the promised deadlines, and we are evaluating the situation,” said Erin Madigan White, spokeswoman for The A.P.
Conservative groups have filed numerous requests for information about Mrs. Clinton as she prepares for a possible presidential run. Citizens United is expecting a court ruling on Friday about a lawsuit the group filed last year after the State Department would not disclose flight records that would have shown who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on overseas trips. The group had intended to cross reference the agency’s flight manifests with the donors who contributed to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The FOIA request was just one of 16 appeals the group has made to the State Department since May that have gone unfulfilled. Those requests also included specific correspondence from Mrs. Clinton and her closest aides, including Cheryl D. Mills and Ms. Abedin.
America Rising, an anti-Clinton “super PAC,” has submitted a dozen FOIA requests for State Department records beginning last June.
Requests included correspondence between Ms. Mills and Clinton Foundation leadership and Ms. Abedin’s communication with members of Teneo, a private consultancy partly run by Doug Band, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton. Ms. Abedin had a special arrangement that allowed her to work at the State Department and be paid by Teneo, which offers strategic advice to major global corporations. America Rising also requested Mrs. Clinton’s schedule during the annual Clinton Global Initiative gatherings in New York.
In all cases, the State Department acknowledged receipt of the FOIA requests and assigned case numbers but did not produce any of the requested documents. “Unfortunately, Clinton’s own political calculation and desire for secrecy, as evidenced by her exclusive use of personal email accounts while at State, is preventing an open process and full, fair review of her time there,” said Jeff Bechdel, a spokesman for America Rising.
State Department officials have previously said they handle thousands of records requests and try to respond as quickly as possible. On Tuesday, Alec Gerlach, a spokesman for the department, defended the agency, and stressed that it was working diligently to comply with the voluminous requests for information from the Republican-controlled House.
Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group, called the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s using personal email “manufactured controversy.”
In a written statement, the National Archives said it had “reached out to the State Department to ensure that all federal records are properly identified and managed in accordance with the Federal Records Act and that controls and procedures are in place to manage records effectively in the future.”
Mrs. Clinton’s aides have said her use of private email was not out of the ordinary, pointing to the fact that former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account, before the current regulations went into effect. But since 2009, said Laura Diachenko, a National Archives and Records spokeswoman, federal regulations have stated that “agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”
The rules are designed to ensure a contemporaneous record of government activity is being kept so it will be available to members of Congress, the news media, historians and ordinary citizens.
Secretary of State John Kerry uses a government email account, and his correspondence is preserved as part of the department’s record-keeping system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0
-
The cult of drones and idiots still support her
-
she seems too old to have the energy/stamina to run for president.
repubs should probably hope she'll run, though. They'd love to have a younger, energetic candidate to make her look old.
strange to think Liz Warren is 2 years younger than hilary. She looks 10 or 15 years younger.
-
she seems too old to have the energy/stamina to run for president.
repubs should probably hope she'll run, though. They'd love to have a younger, energetic candidate to make her look old.
strange to think Liz Warren is 6 years (?) younger than hilary. She looks 10 years younger.
Damn that's a helluva contrast! :o
What does your gut feeling tell you about Liz?
Will she run?
-
They both look old to me
-
They both look old to me
That particular photo of Hillary looks pretty damn rough!
-
That particular photo of Hillary looks pretty damn rough!
all candidates are going to take rough pics. But side by side, over and over in debates possibly...
Warren is going to win the visual battle with viewers.
-
Fauxcahontas is better than Hillary. Hillary is a criminal, an accessory to murder (Benghazi and Vince Foster), a thief (Cattle Futures and Whitewater), a grifter (Stealing WH China) , a carpetbagger NYS Senate run , a cover up artist (Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, Benghaxzi), a liar (Sniper fire), a lezbo (Huma Abbedin), etc.
-
Fauxcahontas is better than Hillary. Hillary is a criminal, an accessory to murder (Benghazi and Vince Foster), a thief (Cattle Futures and Whitewater), a grifter (Stealing WH China) , a carpetbagger NYS Senate run , a cover up artist (Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, Benghaxzi), a liar (Sniper fire), a lezbo (Huma Abbedin), etc.
true that. Warren is a raging lib, but she's upfront about it (which the base will like).
What are the biggest knocks on her? Lying about being indian on college application? It's bad. Maybe it DQ's her... I've always believed adults that use illegal drugs should never be allowed to be presient - obama and bush and clinton included. follow the fcking law already. "youthful folly" is bullshit... 18 year olds are taking fire in the military... I dont want to hear abouot some 30 year old rich kid doing blow is just experimenting. fck that.
-
That particular photo of Hillary looks pretty damn rough!
Yeah, but you can find lots of unflattering pictures of people. You can probably find a recent picture of her that makes her look much better too.
Clinton is 67. Warren is 65. They both look old.
-
Fox News Poll: Voters distrust government, say Obama not most transparent
By Dana Blanton
Published June 30, 2015
FoxNews.com
June 29, 2015: President Obama speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington before signing H.R. 2146 Defending Public Safety Employees Retirement Act and H.R. 1295 Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The nation’s upcoming birthday party could be awkward -- as our relationship with Uncle Sam is on the rocks.
Most American voters distrust their government, are unsure their president is honest, and feel Barack Obama has made false claims about transparency in his administration.
The latest Fox News national poll finds that 61 percent don’t trust the federal government. That’s just one percentage point below the record high of 62 percent distrust in both 2013 and 2011. And it’s a reversal from 2002, soon after the 9/11 attacks, when a 54-percent majority trusted Uncle Sam and only 36 percent didn’t (June 2002).
Click to read the full poll results
Trust among Democrats has gone up since 2002, when George W. Bush was president. It was 47 percent then compared to 54 percent in the new poll.
Trust has precipitously dropped among independents (-32 points) and Republicans (-38 points) over that same time period. Among independents, 53 percent trusted the government in 2002, while 21 percent say the same now. For Republicans, trust was 63 percent then and it’s 25 percent now.
Meanwhile, voters continue to disagree with the administration’s repeated claim that it is the “most transparent administration in history.” Only 29 percent agree with that. Two-thirds say this isn’t the most open White House (67 percent). Last year, it was 28-68 percent (July 2014).
The reviews are far from glowing even among the president’s party faithful: 49 percent of Democrats say Obama is the most transparent, while 46 percent disagree.
Overall, 47 percent of voters think President Obama is honest and trustworthy, yet slightly more -- 50 percent -- say he isn’t. That’s almost identical to last year when it was 48-50 percent (July 2014).
Obama’s high honesty mark was in April 2009, when he had been in office about 100 days. At that time, 73 percent said he was honest and trustworthy and 22 percent disagreed.
Fully 94 percent of Democrats said Obama was honest and trustworthy in 2009. That’s down 14 points to 80 percent in the new poll. For independents, it’s a 32-point drop: 73 percent honest in 2009 and 41 percent now. Among Republicans: 43 percent said Obama was honest in 2009, while just 13 percent say the same today (-30 points).
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,005 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 21-23, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/30/fox-news-poll-voters-distrust-government-say-obama-not-most-transparent/
-
Fox News Poll: Voters distrust government, say Obama not most transparent
He's polling 50% in Gallup today. They don't trust him, but they approve of him still. mind boggling, it truly is.
-
He's polling 50% in Gallup today. They don't trust him, but they approve of him still. mind boggling, it truly is.
Wow. Polling at 50 percent. You should be proud of the guy you voted for. Strike up the band.
-
Wow. Polling at 50 percent. You should be proud of the guy you voted for. Strike up the band.
Obama has literally face-f**ked the Constitution and the American people for 6 years with obamacare, executive orders, amnesty, insane texing, liberal entitlements, giving guns away, letting benghazi happen...
yet 50% of the people in the USA still approve of him. Further proof this is certainly a majority liberal nation now.
-
You Obama voters have set the bar so low. I would be laughing out loud at you liberals celebrating a 50 percent approval rating, over six years into his presidency, if it wasn't so sad.
-
You Obama voters have set the bar so low. I would be laughing out loud at you liberals celebrating a 50 percent approval rating, over six years into his presidency, if it wasn't so sad.
If I recall correctly, with 16 months left in his presidency, Bush was somewhere in the 50% neighborhood, right?
-
If I recall correctly, with 16 months left in his presidency, Bush was somewhere in the 50% neighborhood, right?
I have no idea. What on earth does that have to do with Obama's lousy approval rating?
-
I have no idea. What on earth does that have to do with Obama's lousy approval rating?
in your mind nothing has anything to do with Obama when it shows him comparably in a positive light
strike up the band
-
in your mind nothing has anything to do with Obama when it shows him comparably in a positive light
strike up the band
Do you have an answer? What does the approval rating of George Bush eight years ago have to with Obama's approval rating today?
-
I have no idea. What on earth does that have to do with Obama's lousy approval rating?
because from a historical perspective with past presidents, Obama is actually doing well at 50%.
-
Do you have an answer? What does the approval rating of George Bush eight years ago have to with Obama's approval rating today?
It has to do with striking back at your absurd assertion that somehow its negative that Obama has a 50% rating this late in his term....George Bush had the same thing and many presidents simply don't poll well late in their second term because everyone has something to hold against them.....
you constantly make assertions against Obama and then when its pointed out that this other president did the same or even worse, then you meltdown
just trying to help you with your critical thinking skills :D
-
because from a historical perspective with past presidents, Obama is actually doing well at 50%.
Wait. So the fact past presidents may have had a lousy second term makes Obama's lousy second term good? That is horrible logic.
-
It has to do with striking back at your absurd assertion that somehow its negative that Obama has a 50% rating this late in his term....George Bush had the same thing and many presidents simply don't poll well late in their second term because everyone has something to hold against them.....
you constantly make assertions against Obama and then when its pointed out that this other president did the same or even worse, then you meltdown
just trying to help you with your critical thinking skills :D
I just addressed this, but you talking about critical thinking skills is laugh out loud funny. ;D
-
NY Times: White House Hindering Investigations, Withholding Records
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Friday, 27 Nov 2015
The Obama administration is threatening to roll back more than 30 years of policy that has allowed government watchdogs access to records in order to conduct internal investigations, The New York Times reports.
"It’s the complete evisceration of the concept. You might as well fold them down, Paul Light, a New York University professor who has studied the system told the Times. "They’ve become defanged."
At least two government investigations have either been slowed or shut down because the White House has withheld records, the Times reports.
“This is by far the most aggressive assault on the inspector general concept since the beginning,” said Light, and Peace Corps inspector general Kathy Buller said it "runs against transparency."
The new rules come from a dispute within the Justice Department after its former inspector general, Glenn Fine, gave a series of reports on FBI abuses. After that, FBI attorneys said that he could no longer have access to their confidential records.
A Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion, though, said a law passed in 1978 did not mean the inspector general did not have all access in materials used in an investigation, including wiretap data and results from federal grand juries.
The 1978 system was created after Watergate and now includes watchdogs from some 72 federal agencies, reports The Times. They have published thousands of reports on government abuse, and tension has grown between the Obama administration.
Latest News Update
Justice's inspector general's office said 14 investigations have already been harmed by the project, including a look at how the FBI uses the national Security Agency's phone records; the sharing of information before the Boston Marathon bombings, and the "Fast and Furious" gun tracing organization.
The watchdogs are calling for Congress to intervene.
“It’s essential to enshrine in the law that the inspector general has access to all agency records,” said Fine,, who is now the Pentagon’s principal deputy inspector general.
“The underlying principle is key: To be an effective inspector general, you need the right to receive timely access to all agency records," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NY-Times-White-House-inspector-generals/2015/11/27/id/703718/#ixzz3sza28qGF
-
Wait. So the fact past presidents may have had a lousy second term makes Obama's lousy second term good? That is horrible logic.
oh by the way..its generally agreed upon that Obama is having a good second term for a presdient in his final year....Obama has been more relevant than ever in his second term unlike a lot of presidents....your assertion that he is having a lousy second term is like a lot of your assertions about Obama....totally unfounded
-
oh by the way..its generally agreed upon that Obama is having a good second term for a presdient in his final year....Obama has been more relevant than ever in his second term unlike a lot of presidents....your assertion that he is having a lousy second term is like a lot of your assertions about Obama....totally unfounded
"Generally agreed upon" by who? Link?
-
Earnest: Obama Ran the Most Transparent Administration in History
Posted on December 26, 2016
by Keith Koffler
Please, be serious.
From the Washington Examiner:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest expressed annoyance that President Obama doesn’t get enough credit for being the “most transparent” president in history.
When asked by CNN’s Brian Stelter on Sunday about journalists’ complaints that the federal government isn’t efficient at answering FOIA requests, Earnest said they’ve made progress with the requests over the eight years.
Earnest added that there is really “no constituency in American politics for transparency in government beyond journalists.”
He added: “If this constituency of journalists are gonna be effective advocates for the issue that they care about, they need to remember that they have a responsibility not just to criticize those who are not living up to their expectations.
Looks like Earnest is trying to work on his own legacy issues. Meantime, the Weekly Standard wrote Sunday about how the White House tried to hide that it is letting Iran cheat on the nuclear deal.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2016/12/26/earnest-give-obama-credit-transparent-administration-history/
-
Earnest: Obama Ran the Most Transparent Administration in History
Posted on December 26, 2016
by Keith Koffler
Please, be serious.
From the Washington Examiner:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest expressed annoyance that President Obama doesn’t get enough credit for being the “most transparent” president in history.
When asked by CNN’s Brian Stelter on Sunday about journalists’ complaints that the federal government isn’t efficient at answering FOIA requests, Earnest said they’ve made progress with the requests over the eight years.
Earnest added that there is really “no constituency in American politics for transparency in government beyond journalists.”
He added: “If this constituency of journalists are gonna be effective advocates for the issue that they care about, they need to remember that they have a responsibility not just to criticize those who are not living up to their expectations.
Looks like Earnest is trying to work on his own legacy issues. Meantime, the Weekly Standard wrote Sunday about how the White House tried to hide that it is letting Iran cheat on the nuclear deal.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2016/12/26/earnest-give-obama-credit-transparent-administration-history/
Did the media ever ask why President Obama had numerous emails with Clinton, and those who surrounded her, on the illegal state dept Clinton email server under a pseudonym?
In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607)
If so transparent, why the pseudonym?