Most Tranparent Presidency Evah

[woodchip]

Well it seems the Feds have found a treasure trove of emails between IRS and White House showing how they shared tax returns of american citizens. Will the President allow the documents to go public?:

"Less than a week after ’fessing up that it found some 2,500 documents potentially showing that the IRS shared taxpayer returns with the White House, the Obama administration has reversed course and won’t release the trove to a group suing for access."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feds- ... le/2556890

So welcome to the banana republic of murica under the control of El Jefe Obama.

[Will Robinson]

Let me save the usual suspects the effort:

'Nothing to see here, move along people. Everyone knows the only way you can find fault with Obama is if you are a racist.'

[callmeslick]

here's what this 'usual suspect' just found, with 5 minutes effort:

A search on google of "IRS shares returns with White House" brought up two pages of NOTHING but right-wing loon 'quasi-news' sites, and a couple right wing forums. The first actual news organization site of ANY legitimacy was Fox, who, it turned out, had but a forum post. Likewise, by page 3, ABC pops up, but it is just a forum post. More interesting, EVERY single post seemed to contain the same two-paragraph Examiner statement, but little else. I'll comment if this turns out to be legit, but until then, something smells, and it isn't what you think.

[Tunnelcat]

Excluding the IRS stuff, there are quite a few journalist opinions concerning the matter of transparency........

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ap-stud ... nistration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/1 ... 73037.html

[vision]

It's my biggest complaint about the White House, but it isn't restricted to this presidency either.

[woodchip]

Correct vision, except this president made a big issue of it when he ran in 2008.

[Tunnelcat]

Sad.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... etive.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/270249 ... -force-one

[woodchip]

From the Slate link:

"In fact, this president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined."

Pretty damming statement. Nice to see our president following in the footsteps of 3rd world dictators. Adding this to Obama's statement about being able to kill people with drones and you get a clearer picture of the disturbed person we have sitting on the nuclear trigger.

[Jeff250]

Woodchip, I wish I saw this kind of support for whistleblowers from you when Snowden's revelations came to light.

[CUDA]

there is just a slight difference in a whistle blower and someone that is passing classified government secrets

[Jeff250]

But if you're being prosecuted under the Espionage Act, then you're being prosecuted for revealing classified government secrets.

[vision]

I think woodchip and friends want "transparency lite" which is only to know secrets that reinforce their point of view.

[Will Robinson]

I had no trouble with Snowden, he tried to keep people out of danger from his measured releases of info but Manning doesn't deserve any mercy from what I recall.

Now if it turns out his fleeing to Russia to avoid the consequences actually put the whole volume of what he downloaded took with him into Putin's hands then he went beyond whistle blowing and I'll retract my approval.

As for Obama, he has been given the golden ticket from the media and pop culture. He is allowed to blatantly deny anything he does and goes unchallenged.

So what the hell do you lefty's expect? Of course he's going to do what ever the hell he wants with disregard for collateral damage and friendly fire. And when that kind of stuff happens he just stands in front of the camera and says "I'm just as mad as you people about this"...."I heard about this at the same time you did"... He knows if anyone makes too much trouble about it the usual sycophants will rush in and play the race card for him and/or toss out any number of other ridiculous smoke screens.

If you are a lefty and don't like it too bad, you reap what you sow.

[callmeslick]

basically, you can take all of Will's rambling above and distill it to:
"I hate Obama, I told you he was evil, and somehow this proves it, so there, neener, neener, neener."

At any rate, as someone(Jeff?)attempted to note above, if one successfully prosecutes a person under the Espionage act, what they did wasn't 'whistleblowing', it was subversion and a threat to US nationals in the world, as proven in court. Otherwise, I note that there is still no return to the original 'story' and that it STILL isn't covered by any reputable news reportage.

[Jeff250]

At any rate, as someone(Jeff?)...

What you're about to say is actually the exact opposite of what I believe! I was just pointing out that being charged with releasing classified material doesn't distinguish Snowden from any of the other whistleblowers that Obama has prosecuted.

...attempted to note above, if one successfully prosecutes a person under the Espionage act, what they did wasn't 'whistleblowing', it was subversion and a threat to US nationals in the world, as proven in court. Otherwise, I note that there is still no return to the original 'story' and that it STILL isn't covered by any reputable news reportage.

The U.S. doesn't have to prove that the documents you released should have been classified. It's not a valid defense to show that your revelation of the classified documents was for the public good. Even if the government behavior that you exposed is later found to be unconstitutional, you're still just as guilty under the Espionage Act.

This is why the Obama administration's challenge that Snowden return to the United States to defend himself in a court of law is ludicrous. He wouldn't be given any opportunity to give a defense of what he did.

The Espionage Act needs serious reform. Whistleblowers are necessary for a healthy democracy, and the Espionage Act as written undermines them.

[callmeslick]

Jeff, I might agree that secrecy and classification of documents should be revised considerably, but I thus far haven't seen too many of these 'whistleblowers' who took into consideration the lives being risked by certain information dumps. I thus wrestle with the balance between 'the public good' and the safety of those the nation has at work around the world.

[Will Robinson]

basically, you can take all of Will's rambling above and distill it to:
"I hate Obama, I told you he was evil, and somehow this proves it, so there, neener, neener, neener."...

Only if you are a left wing hack trying to blow smoke up everyone's backside orifice due to your lack of a substantive argument.

[Jeff250]

Jeff, I might agree that secrecy and classification of documents should be revised considerably, but I thus far haven't seen too many of these 'whistleblowers' who took into consideration the lives being risked by certain information dumps. I thus wrestle with the balance between 'the public good' and the safety of those the nation has at work around the world.

Manning did an indiscriminate data release, which is certainly problematic, but most whistleblowers that Obama prosecutes didn't, including Snowden. All I see is egg on the face of this and the previous administration as a result of Snowden's revelations rather than any actual, demonstrable harm to anyone's life.

[woodchip]

Otherwise, I note that there is still no return to the original 'story' and that it STILL isn't covered by any reputable news reportage.

Lets see how sad this comment is. First off look at the video in the link and you will see the white house press corp bringing up the issue. Perhaps they are not reputable enough for you slick? What news organ is reputable in your eyes? The same ones that spent 7 days covering how the Obama daughters were dressed and their facial expressions at a press coverage? Compare this to the non-existent coverage of the bombshell statement by Gruber concerning Obamacare and you can see what your reputable news sources want the American people to hear about. They are not called the "Lame Stream Media" for nothing...which is why, I suppose, you are so uninformed at times.

[woodchip]

Woodchip, I wish I saw this kind of support for whistleblowers from you when Snowden's revelations came to light.

I guess Jeff, at the time I was waiting to see just what Snowden was going to release. Was it going to be like Manning and people died from the released data? As it turned out, so far the Snowden dump only embarrased a portion of the govt. that needed to be exposed. The point being do all the people convicted of "Espionage" actually do harm or did they embarass.

[callmeslick]

it is covered by NO media, save the loony right-wing blogosphere, long ago completely discredited, Woody. Dance all you will around that.

[woodchip]

Sad isn't it slick. what is even sadder is you think because only the blogs cover it and not the Obama news outlets that this is somehow not news. The only one doing the Texas 2 step is you.

[callmeslick]

Sad isn't it slick. what is even sadder is you think because only the blogs cover it and not the Obama news outlets that this is somehow not news. The only one doing the Texas 2 step is you.

blogs have no accountabilty, generally little by way of real facts and most of them regurgitate made-up 'stories' and 'exposes' that they are spoon fed by their masters to do. Find yourself real news sources. They are out there, now be a big boy and try to expose yourself to them.

[woodchip]

So you are saying the Washington Examiner is a blog and feeding us a lie? If it is not a lie then I suggest you wipe the egg off your face and make a omelet.

[woodchip]

Oh and slick, your google foo is lacking. Is Forbes also a blog that you disdain:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/ ... -violated/

[callmeslick]

So you are saying the Washington Examiner is a blog and feeding us a lie? If it is not a lie then I suggest you wipe the egg off your face and make a omelet.

yes, the Examiner is floating a story that is neither verified by anyone else, nor of any substance(much hinting at what it 'may' contain, but nothing concrete). Not a blog, but nothing short of garbage in terms of journalistic integrity.

[callmeslick]

Oh and slick, your google foo is lacking. Is Forbes also a blog that you disdain:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/ ... -violated/

well, for starters, not one shred of anything concrete in that piece. Opinion as to what should be release why, which certainly seemed plausible, but nothing about the contents, of course. And nothing in the facts that agrees with much of the Examiners overheated rhetoric, either.

[Top Gun]

Oh and slick, your google foo is lacking. Is Forbes also a blog that you disdain:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/ ... -violated/

Any Forbes link with "/sites/" in the URL is a user-generated opinion column not written by actual Forbes staff. In other words...a blog.