View Full Version : Trump sued for refusing to release visitor logs
Any of you open government/ House of the People sorts prepared to defend him? Guess he needs to protect all his Russian spies. :rolleyes:
Three organizations are suing the Trump administration for not making public the logs that show who is visiting the White House.
The National Security Archive, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University have all filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) calling for the release of the logs.
The suit has formally been filed against the Department of Homeland Security, as the organizations say the Secret Service has not provided the log information despite FOIA requests.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328058-dhs-sued-for-not-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328058-dhs-sued-for-not-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs)
And in further Trump news and as North Korea conflict grows more tense - it's another awesome million dollar weekend on the taxpayers in Mar-a-Lago (but don't eat the food! ;-)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-mar-a-lago/
Green Arrow
04-14-2017, 12:56 PM
This seems to me to be a case of the president having something to hide. If he didn't, why not release the logs?
This seems to me to be a case of the president having something to hide. If he didn't, why not release the logs?
They have no compelling reason unless as you say - they are hiding things.
And you can say the same about Trump's taxes and the fact that all his clowns lied about Russian contacts and failed to report foreign agent status - These things raise immediate red flags.
It's a very simple rule: If you don't want to be considered guilty, then don't ACT guilty.
Common
04-14-2017, 02:07 PM
If I were trump I would bust the lefts balls every chance I got, just like they do neverendlingly. Let them fight everything in court. Make them wait forever.
Captain Obvious
04-14-2017, 02:12 PM
Visitor logs... lol
Who fucking cares, besides pissants...
Common Sense
04-14-2017, 04:08 PM
Visitor logs... lol
Who fucking cares, besides pissants...
Trump cared.
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/tweet.trump_.jpg?itok=_7rH3lwp
Trump's tweet came after the Obama admin said they were not going to release WH visitor logs.
Just more hypocrisy from Trump and more hypocrites defending him.
Trump cared.
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/tweet.trump_.jpg?itok=_7rH3lwp
Trump's tweet came after the Obama admin said they were not going to release WH visitor logs.
Just more hypocrisy from Trump and more hypocrites defending him.
that's different
If I were trump I would bust the lefts balls every chance I got, just like they do neverendlingly. Let them fight everything in court. Make them wait forever.
Gee, what a fantastic democratic principle ya got there Sally! ;-)
Trump cared.
Trump's tweet came after the Obama admin said they were not going to release WH visitor logs.
Just more hypocrisy from Trump and more hypocrites defending him.
And of course they DID release visitor logs ..
Oh My YES - the Hypocrisy do FO DAMN sure continueth!
hanger4
04-14-2017, 04:26 PM
"Transparency advocates had praised Obama's decision to release the logs, although his administration argued the disclosure was not required by law but instead was voluntary. As a result, Obama's team frequently redacted names from the list of visitors that were released to the public, including celebrities and donors who were sighted on the White House grounds.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17G1GF
Apparently the Obama administration had things to hide also.
"Transparency advocates had praised Obama's decision to release the logs, although his administration argued the disclosure was not required by law but instead was voluntary. As a result, Obama's team frequently redacted names from the list of visitors that were released to the public, including celebrities and donors who were sighted on the White House grounds.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17G1GF
Apparently the Obama administration had things to hide also.
https://i.giphy.com/4N9NXryLJveAo.gif
patrickt
04-14-2017, 04:35 PM
"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday released a partial roster of visitors (http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records) in the first six months of President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s term, a disclosure that shows business executives, labor leaders, lobbyists and a sprinkling of celebrities were cleared into the White House for meetings, events or tours."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31visitor.html
Wow! Six months. A partial list. But the NYTimes hadn't sued. I wonder why. Now, less than three months in, leftists groups are suing left and right.
And, I remember when poor Mr. Gibbs had to stand up and say that just because a name appeared on the log numerous times it didn't mean that the same person visited all those times. It could have been a lot of people with the same name. Even the liberal media laughed at that. "Would the real Andy Stern please stand up."
No, this is much ado about nothing. And, @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), I wonder what Barack Obama was hiding by releasing only a partial list. And if anyone had bothered to read the artile they would have seen that the issue isn't simply visitors to the White House. President Trump has been meeting people at other places and they want the lists of those people, too.
I know it's ludicrous but President Trump wasn't sued for refusing to release lists. A suit was filed to force the release of the lists. I wonder why no one every thought of using a lawsuit to get Clinton's emails or Lois Lerners information or even Barack Obama's school records.
hanger4
04-14-2017, 04:41 PM
https://i.giphy.com/4N9NXryLJveAo.gif
Oh my, did Reuters lie Bo-4 ??
"Under Obama, the White House made the logs available for public review only after certain security standards were met. For example, the records typically weren't released until weeks after the visits occurred. Also, Obama's administration did not disclose 100 percent of the logs -- redacting some for varying security reasons."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/04/14/Trump-White-House-will-keep-visitors-logs-secret/2441492190271/
And UPI ??
"Obama at times drew criticism for such carve-outs, as well as for other ways of skirting the agreement, including meetings between White House officials and lobbyists at a coffee shop near the White House that didn't show up in the logs."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/14/trump-to-discontinue-obama-policy-of-voluntarily-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs/
And WaPo ??
This is much ado over nothing.
Green Arrow
04-14-2017, 04:46 PM
"Transparency advocates had praised Obama's decision to release the logs, although his administration argued the disclosure was not required by law but instead was voluntary. As a result, Obama's team frequently redacted names from the list of visitors that were released to the public, including celebrities and donors who were sighted on the White House grounds.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17G1GF
Apparently the Obama administration had things to hide also.
Of course it did. Let's stop with the tu quoque fallacy.
perhaps i missed it, but is obama back in office?
hanger4
04-14-2017, 04:56 PM
Of course it did. Let's stop with the tu quoque fallacy.
No tu quoque, just pointing to Bo that the Hill left out salient facts. Isn't that fibbing by omission ??
No tu quoque, just pointing to Bo that the Hill left out salient facts. Isn't that fibbing by omission ??
NO .. Please try harder
"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday released a partial roster of visitors (http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records) in the first six months of President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s term, a disclosure that shows business executives, labor leaders, lobbyists and a sprinkling of celebrities were cleared into the White House for meetings, events or tours."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31visitor.html
Wow! Six months. A partial list. But the NYTimes hadn't sued. I wonder why. Now, less than three months in, leftists groups are suing left and right.
And, I remember when poor Mr. Gibbs had to stand up and say that just because a name appeared on the log numerous times it didn't mean that the same person visited all those times. It could have been a lot of people with the same name. Even the liberal media laughed at that. "Would the real Andy Stern please stand up."
No, this is much ado about nothing. And, @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), I wonder what Barack Obama was hiding by releasing only a partial list. And if anyone had bothered to read the artile they would have seen that the issue isn't simply visitors to the White House. President Trump has been meeting people at other places and they want the lists of those people, too.
I know it's ludicrous but President Trump wasn't sued for refusing to release lists. A suit was filed to force the release of the lists. I wonder why no one every thought of using a lawsuit to get Clinton's emails or Lois Lerners information or even Barack Obama's school records.
From 2009 shortly after O was inaugurated?
WoW -- YOU are awesome too!
i don't know what the big deal is.
it's not like a lot of people can read the cyrillic alphabet
Green Arrow
04-14-2017, 05:11 PM
No tu quoque, just pointing to Bo that the Hill left out salient facts. Isn't that fibbing by omission ??
"Apparently the Obama administration had things to hide also" is tu quoque. It's not relevant to the topic (which is the Trump administration).
hanger4
04-14-2017, 05:13 PM
NO .. Please try harder
Yes .. Leaving out salient facts that change the crux of the story pretty much makes it a hit piece.
Bethere
04-14-2017, 05:14 PM
i don't know what the big deal is.
it's not like a lot of people can read the cyrillic alphabet
Хорошие времена!tm
Хорошие времена!tm
Лорд!
Достаточно уверенный
hanger4
04-14-2017, 05:19 PM
"Apparently the Obama administration had things to hide also" is tu quoque. It's not relevant to the topic (which is the Trump administration).
Of course it's relevant, The Hill posted a hit piece. Posting the O admin hid certain log substantiated that.
No tu quoque, just pointing to Bo that the Hill left out salient facts. Isn't that fibbing by omission ??
Was it THIS one?
Curious
Trump administration said it would release information under far more limited circumstances: when Freedom of Information Act requests are filed for those visiting offices of the White House characterized under the law as separate agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget.
hanger4
04-14-2017, 06:16 PM
Was it THIS one?
Curious
Trump administration said it would release information under far more limited circumstances: when Freedom of Information Act requests are filed for those visiting offices of the White House characterized under the law as separate agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget.
You have the C&P's and links I posted.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.