Democrats Propose a Law To Keep Obama Records Secret

[rtrusty]

In an obvious effort to protect President Barack Obama, a group of congressional Democrats has introduced legislation to create an official process that will allow the commander-in-chief to keep presidential records secret after he leaves office.

Ironically, Obama revoked a similar George W. Bush order in one of his first official acts as president. In 2001 Bush penned an executive order severely limiting public access to his presidential records. Shortly after swearing in, Obama killed it as part of his much-ballyhooed commitment to government transparency. At the time, the new president claimed that he was giving the American people greater access to “historic documents.”

It was the right move. The Bush Administration did indeed demonstrate a disappointing penchant for secrecy and Judicial Watch was a frontrunner in the effort to make records public. Examples include: The **** Cheney Energy Task Force records that JW pursued before the United States Supreme Court; Attorney General John Ashcroft’s order advising government agencies to withhold all discretionary disclosures; invoking executive privilege to block the House Government Reform Committee’s probe of the Campaign Financing Task Force.

If the Democrats’ proposed measure (Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2011) becomes law, former presidents will be allowed to assert a new “constitutionally based privilege” against disclosing records of their liking. Here is how it would work; the Archivist of the United States would be required to notify the former president, as well as the incumbent, of intentions to make records public. Anything that either the former or current president claims should be kept private won’t be released.

The veteran Brooklyn congressman (Edolphus Towns) who recently introduced the law in the U.S. House has yet to explain why it’s necessary. What’s certain is that Obama has failed miserably to keep his promise of running the most transparent administration in history. For examples read highlights from Judicial Watch’s testimony before Congress earlier this year. JW was invited to testify in separate House and Senate hearings during “Sunshine Week,” a national initiative by the news media, nonprofits and other organizations to promote government transparency and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

[tim5400]

political hypocracy at its finest again....time for a wholesale change of all Government officials REP and DEM

[TPSprayduster]

All Presidents try and keep their secrets some are never known until after 25 years the death of that president. So please Rusty come up with something we don't know.

[jaman]

let the spinning began ,didn't vote for him the first time ..won't vote form him the second time :o !

[Jmcc]

Anybody in public office should not be able to hide what they did in that public office at any time. Starts at the top and goes all the way down and includes cabinet members, czars, and people answering the phone.

[WallyWeaver]

All Presidents try and keep their secrets some are never known until after 25 years the death of that president. So please Rusty come up with something we don't know.

That may be true but that is another "change" that Obama was touting when he took office. This is taken off of his own website:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in

Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a

system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will

strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

So it's not that he's no different than any other president that is being pointed out. It is that he was going to be different then the other presidents; he would do it better then the others. If this goes through I will chalk it up as another broken promise....

[Gooserider67]

Our government is full of nothing but hypocrites and liars they only worry about what servers their purpose at that moment not the people. They create laws to protect and serve their purpose and the a year down the road they introduce another law that removes their previous law because it served its purpose. And you wonder why our government takes so long to accomplish anything. It is so true that we need to purge this government and get some fresh blood and only then maybe we will see true progress. Obama has committed so many atrocities playing president that he needs to be tried and held accountable for them. We put Bill Clinton on the stand for lying about getting a "oral relation" and was going to impeach him for it. (I know it was for lying under oath not the oral relations), but this Liar in Chief need to go before we can not even wipe our behinds without a presidential order.

[Chape]

All Presidents try and keep their secrets some are never known until after 25 years the death of that president. So please Rusty come up with something we don't know.

Yes TP,

But I am with RT on this.. Why?

If other presidents were able to secret away their

activity WITHOUT a law, then can you explain why it’s necessary at all?

Best Regards

[kiteman]

I know that everyone on here has internet access, so I can't understand why none of you can do about 3 minutes on google to figure out that the headline on this thread is complete bunk! Anything to bash Obama, but no time to do any research to determine the validity of these claims.

#1. This law would apply to ALL former presidents, not just Obama.

#2. Any request for information would be sent to that President prior to records being released.

#3. That President can decide if they want the records protected under the Constitutionally based privlige. (Created under Republican Richard Nixon, why would he have anything to hide? )

#4. If that President does claim the privledge, the request then goes to the sitting President for review.

#5. If the sitting President agrees, no records are released.

#6. If the sitting President disagrees, records will be released unless the recorded President gets a court order to have them blocked from release.

All of this takes place in 60 days. Not the current months and years it takes now.

This ammendment would clarify this process as LAW instead of having each President get to write his own Presidential Order for this proces. This would solidify the process and make it known to ALL how the process works and what the options are. Seems pretty good to me.

Do any of you seriously think President Perry (nevery going to happen and it makes my laugh out loud every time I say it or type it!! ) is going to agree with President Obama about keeping a certain record (think Solyndra) away from the press???? Really!!

Finally, this ammendment hasn't even made it through a committee vote, so why don't ya'll hold off on the claims of "Obama lied" until it maybe crosses his desk. Right now he can't do anything about it. Go check out Schoolhouse Rock about how laws are made.

[mrmcwhipit]

What a bunch of lying crooks.

[rtrusty]

I know that everyone on here has internet access, so I can't understand why none of you can do about 3 minutes on google to figure out that the headline on this thread is complete bunk! Anything to bash Obama, but no time to do any research to determine the validity of these claims.

#1. This law would apply to ALL former presidents, not just Obama.

#2. Any request for information would be sent to that President prior to records being released.

#3. That President can decide if they want the records protected under the Constitutionally based privlige. (Created under Republican Richard Nixon, why would he have anything to hide? )

#4. If that President does claim the privledge, the request then goes to the sitting President for review.

#5. If the sitting President agrees, no records are released.

#6. If the sitting President disagrees, records will be released unless the recorded President gets a court order to have them blocked from release.

All of this takes place in 60 days. Not the current months and years it takes now.

This ammendment would clarify this process as LAW instead of having each President get to write his own Presidential Order for this proces. This would solidify the process and make it known to ALL how the process works and what the options are. Seems pretty good to me.

Do any of you seriously think President Perry (nevery going to happen and it makes my laugh out loud every time I say it or type it!! ) is going to agree with President Obama about keeping a certain record (think Solyndra) away from the press???? Really!!

Finally, this ammendment hasn't even made it through a committee vote, so why don't ya'll hold off on the claims of "Obama lied" until it maybe crosses his desk. Right now he can't do anything about it. Go check out Schoolhouse Rock about how laws are made.

Maybe so Kiteman but it wants to get it past on his watch so he can use it.

[WallyWeaver]

so why don't ya'll hold off on the claims of "Obama lied" until it maybe crosses his desk.

It is an easy mistake to read "Obama lied" and just simply believe it without doing any fact checking. In my opinion it would simply be within the realm of the character he has displayed already.

Here are a few links after only about "3 minutes" of using a search engine:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/darn-tooting-obama-lied-about-abortion-coverage-obamacare

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/obama-lied-the-economy-died/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-dishonest-free-trade-demogoguery_592714.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/177405-obama-not-congress-must-act-on-trade-agreements

http://www.infowars.com/paper-obamas-speech-most-dishonest-in-decades/

[rtrusty]

It is an easy mistake to read "Obama lied" and just simply believe it without doing any fact checking. In my opinion it would simply be within the realm of the character he has displayed already.

Here are a few links after only about "3 minutes" of using a search engine:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/darn-tooting-obama-lied-about-abortion-coverage-obamacare

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/obama-lied-the-economy-died/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-dishonest-free-trade-demogoguery_592714.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/177405-obama-not-congress-must-act-on-trade-agreements

http://www.infowars.com/paper-obamas-speech-most-dishonest-in-decades/

Yep that just about said it all.

[kiteman]

It is an easy mistake to read "Obama lied" and just simply believe it without doing any fact checking. In my opinion it would simply be within the realm of the character he has displayed already.

Here are a few links after only about "3 minutes" of using a search engine:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/darn-tooting-obama-lied-about-abortion-coverage-obamacare

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/obama-lied-the-economy-died/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-dishonest-free-trade-demogoguery_592714.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/177405-obama-not-congress-must-act-on-trade-agreements

http://www.infowars.com/paper-obamas-speech-most-dishonest-in-decades/

I never said he hasn't lied, because he has. Just like all of them.

Why don't you pull a quick list of Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell???? They all lie and adjust the answers to please the base. He's no different than any of them.

I was simply implying that he hasn't lied on this issue. Yet.

[WallyWeaver]

I never said he hasn't lied, because he has. Just like all of them.

Why don't you pull a quick list of Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell???? They all lie and adjust the answers to please the base. He's no different than any of them.

I was simply implying that he hasn't lied on this issue. Yet.

This was an exercise in Obama's honesty... I would find it hard to defend just about any politician. Although I did find it interesting that you chose to pick only those on the right in your retort (Boehner, Cantor and McConnell).

My response was to your apparent attack directed at what I posted:

so why don't ya'll hold off on the claims of "Obama lied" until it maybe crosses his desk

At least that's how I interpreted it. And even you have agreed that there is still a possibility that Obama will break his promise with the issue at hand in the topic above.

[Francie26]

All Presidents try and keep their secrets some are never known until after 25 years the death of that president. So please Rusty come up with something we don't know.

I didn't know this, so Rusty, keep the good work.

If it was right for Obama to release G. Bush's records, then it is right for his own rcords to be released, too. Yes, this is just one more example of his hypocracy. Remember one of your childhood old sayings: "What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. " (or vice versa)

[divemaster5734]

political hypocracy at its finest again....time for a wholesale change of all Government officials REP and DEM

Well said. This whole left/right paradigm was only intended to create divide.

Once we give into labeling we then create a conflict.

We have been so conflicted amongst ourselves we have allowed the collectivists to promulgate in DC.

It is time we abandon all pretense through labeling, and declare ourselves Americans.

That would mean much less division between ourselves. Perhaps we could then ALL join to address our REAL enemy, none other than the very same "representatives" we elected that are only serving themselves through corruption and back door deals.

Once we understand we are much more alike than different we can begin to discuss a shared future on this planet.

Anybody in public office should not be able to hide what they did in that public office at any time. Starts at the top and goes all the way down and includes cabinet members, czars, and people answering the phone.

Just the job title indicates certain aspects of the position doesn't it?

PUBLIC SERVICE means a public position, that would indicate a level of transparency which should be REQUIRED of all persons, since they have the means and ability to abuse their position of TRUST.

30 years ago there would have been no discussion needed.

All records would have been opened and examined.

I don't understand why ANYONE would seek to continue to divide this nation, unless they really DON'T CARE.

We need to come together like no other time in history if we are to survive.

[tarsi]

Kiteman...........thats because when it comes to Obama, they are not intrested in TRUTH or FACTS, as only their blind hatred guides them, and its sad to see how the PTB, manipulates them like a puppet on a string with the Obama distractions while they accomplish their own selfish agenda's all the while laughing at their gullability, and blind alligence, that benefits no one but them and their cause. Much like the mentality of the kamikaze soldier, we see how that has worked out for them.

[divemaster5734]

Kiteman...........thats because when it comes to Obama, they are not intrested in TRUTH or FACTS, as only their blind hatred guides them, and its sad to see how the PTB, manipulates them like a puppet on a string with the Obama distractions while they accomplish their own selfish agenda's all the while laughing at their gullability, and blind alligence, that benefits no one but them and their cause. Much like the mentality of the kamikaze soldier, we see how that has worked out for them.

Why is it, you claim you are persecuted by others, yet, when you respond, you only choose the one that promotes the hate and division?

Could it be you don't want to see this nation come together?

What are the OTHER options? Are you planning on just eliminating anyone that doesn't agree with everything you say????

Isn't that what you are angry about in the first place?

A lot of us are willing to drop the bo eligibility thing in order to ease the tensions, but you only post when you can fan the flames of division.

Why is that?

And what does it matter if bo DOES get investigated after he is out of office?

Are you not even willing to see if there WERE any lies?

If you claim to only care about America, how can you justify your hate?

[Jaxinjersey]

Well said. This whole left/right paradigm was only intended to create divide.

Once we give into labeling we then create a conflict.

We have been so conflicted amongst ourselves we have allowed the collectivists to promulgate in DC.

It is time we abandon all pretense through labeling, and declare ourselves Americans.

That would mean much less division between ourselves. Perhaps we could then ALL join to address our REAL enemy, none other than the very same "representatives" we elected that are only serving themselves through corruption and back door deals.

Once we understand we are much more alike than different we can begin to discuss a shared future on this planet.

Just the job title indicates certain aspects of the position doesn't it?

PUBLIC SERVICE means a public position, that would indicate a level of transparency which should be REQUIRED of all persons, since they have the means and ability to abuse their position of TRUST.

30 years ago there would have been no discussion needed.

All records would have been opened and examined.

I don't understand why ANYONE would seek to continue to divide this nation, unless they really DON'T CARE.

We need to come together like no other time in history if we are to survive.

Hello Divemaster... I always find a lot of sense in your posts. I certainly respect your viewpoints and share your frustration. However, here, I just can't comprehend the concept of the "union" you express, as the right and left ideologies are just too opposite. Yes, in an ideal world of objective reasoning, this concept would cure all.... but for far too many issues, "compromise" is truly a dirty word. One rationale or viewpoint will always suffer more than the other, and one will always prosper more. There is no such thing as "more alike than we are different", even if we could just all be labeled "Americans", unfortunately. There is a clearly marked line of separation... hence the inevitability of the "labels". I'm a Conservative and always will be different from my polar opposites... I will not compromise that. To give up any Conservative value, usually is only a gain for the left... it rarely has true reciprocity. When the left gives something up (ideologically), it's usually something that was already taken from the Conservative side... so they would just be giving it back.

I do agree about the Common Enemy... our public servants' elitist mentality and entitlement attitude must always be confronted... and it is. But you have stated the most profound fact toward the end of your eloquent commentary.... "unless they really DON'T CARE". The divide is exactly for that reason... committed on purpose, via planned deconstructive efforts aimed at our Constitution and way of life. THAT, my friend, is the reason we must come together... and in that, there can only be one side. Which side each of us is on... is a decision of character, intellectual honesty, and courage. I see a lot of that here on DV.

[divemaster5734]

Hello Divemaster... I always find a lot of sense in your posts. I certainly respect your viewpoints and share your frustration. However, here, I just can't comprehend the concept of the "union" you express, as the right and left ideologies are just too opposite. Yes, in an ideal world of objective reasoning, this concept would cure all.... but for far too many issues, "compromise" is truly a dirty word. One rationale or viewpoint will always suffer more than the other, and one will always prosper more. There is no such thing as "more alike than we are different", even if we could just all be labeled "Americans", unfortunately. There is a clearly marked line of separation... hence the inevitability of the "labels". I'm a Conservative and always will be different from my polar opposites... I will not compromise that. To give up any Conservative value, usually is only a gain for the left... it rarely has true reciprocity. When the left gives something up (ideologically), it's usually something that was already taken from the Conservative side... so they would just be giving it back.

I do agree about the Common Enemy... our public servants' elitist mentality and entitlement attitude must always be confronted... and it is. But you have stated the most profound fact toward the end of your eloquent commentary.... "unless they really DON'T CARE". The divide is exactly for that reason... committed on purpose, via planned deconstructive efforts aimed at our Constitution and way of life. THAT, my friend, is the reason we must come together... and in that, there can only be one side. Which side each of us is on... is a decision of character, intellectual honesty, and courage. I see a lot of that here on DV.

Thank You Jax, I also find your posts honest and thoughtful.

I agree there are some inherent differences in ideology that definitely clash. However, in dissecting doctrines and researching precedents, it occurred to me that core beliefs have been hijacked for personal gain by small factions that have resulted in the stereotypes imagined simply by using labels.

The Republican party was originally for limited government and ethical business practices and responsibility for actions by both government and business.

That was hijacked by the GOP.

I believed myself to be a "conservative", and while I am by the truest definition, I am definitely NOT in support of the crony capitalism that is as destructive as the government.

After contemplating that, I realized I have traditional values(believe in God, open doors for ladies, believe in hard work, etc), that did not make me a conservative.

I do believe every human was created by God, our rights given by God, not privileges granted by benevolent government.

Because I do believe in God, and God gave humans free will, who am I to judge them if they don't follow MY God?

That would make me a traditional values christian libertarian constitutionalist.

Wait a minute.

Liberals were the original libertarians. They were hijacked by the progressives. To say lib conjures images of a socialist progressive.

But that was not what they were, and I know many Liberals that are actually constitutionalists.

Moderate Democrats see more damage by corporations, but readily acknowledge government has severe issues.

Moderate Republicans believe themselves to be conservatives, mistaking it for traditional values.

See why I don't like labels?

of course, there are atheists that will only point a finger and condemn, but the truth is they hate anyone not exactly like them.

The exact same can be said for the other side, there will always be a die hard base that refuses to consider anything but their own little narrow perspective.

In reaching out to "the other side" and having genuine discussions, it is apparent almost everybody wants the exact same thing.

A fair chance to lead a productive life, one that will allow a certain amount of security while maintaining individual liberty, a chance to raise a family free of persecution, prejudice, and oppression.

It isn't going to be easy. We have been programmed for a long time.

This is no accident. As long as we are divided we can not defend ourselves.

[cajunlady51]

And yet they listen to our phone calls, read our emails, use social networks to gather information on us, and we've done nothing to earn such scrutiny. If he's innocent, what does he have to hide? Plenty, as did both the Bushes, Clinton, Johnson, etc, etc. If the American citizens knew how diabolical our government was and is, we'd be trying them for treason.

[Jaxinjersey]

Thank You Jax, I also find your posts honest and thoughtful.

I agree there are some inherent differences in ideology that definitely clash. However, in dissecting doctrines and researching precedents, it occurred to me that core beliefs have been hijacked for personal gain by small factions that have resulted in the stereotypes imagined simply by using labels.

The Republican party was originally for limited government and ethical business practices and responsibility for actions by both government and business.

That was hijacked by the GOP.

I believed myself to be a "conservative", and while I am by the truest definition, I am definitely NOT in support of the crony capitalism that is as destructive as the government.

After contemplating that, I realized I have traditional values(believe in God, open doors for ladies, believe in hard work, etc), that did not make me a conservative.

I do believe every human was created by God, our rights given by God, not privileges granted by benevolent government.

Because I do believe in God, and God gave humans free will, who am I to judge them if they don't follow MY God?

That would make me a traditional values christian libertarian constitutionalist.

Wait a minute.

Liberals were the original libertarians. They were hijacked by the progressives. To say lib conjures images of a socialist progressive.

But that was not what they were, and I know many Liberals that are actually constitutionalists.

Moderate Democrats see more damage by corporations, but readily acknowledge government has severe issues.

Moderate Republicans believe themselves to be conservatives, mistaking it for traditional values.

See why I don't like labels?

of course, there are atheists that will only point a finger and condemn, but the truth is they hate anyone not exactly like them.

The exact same can be said for the other side, there will always be a die hard base that refuses to consider anything but their own little narrow perspective.

In reaching out to "the other side" and having genuine discussions, it is apparent almost everybody wants the exact same thing.

A fair chance to lead a productive life, one that will allow a certain amount of security while maintaining individual liberty, a chance to raise a family free of persecution, prejudice, and oppression.

It isn't going to be easy. We have been programmed for a long time.

This is no accident. As long as we are divided we can not defend ourselves.

DM... wonderfully stated, awesome response, thank you. And, I like your label: "traditional values christian libertarian constitutionalist."

Personally, I've learned to pick my battles as realistically as possible in order to pursue any changes, and happiness. I embrace labels, definition... as they help me validate and secure clarity.... so as not to get caught up in a wishy-washy world of convoluted, twisted values. Labels are just that, extremely revealing. A duck is a duck, so to speak... it will take a lot to convince me otherwise. Labels of any kind should be worn proudly... and hopefully for many, can be changed!

As I said, I'm a Conservative... a label that simply defines my values. Also notice, that I did not use the label "Liberal" in my last post... as I did not feel it was necessarily warranted. But, I have used it and will use it as needed for clarity.

The division you speak of must at least be suppressed... because it will always exist. Labels do not divide us... ideology does. The label does not change the philosophy. Intellectual honesty, along with more objective reasoning and continuous enlightenment will save us.

And once again, you are correct... "This is no accident"...

Keep up the vigilence, DM!

[uncirculd]

In an obvious effort to protect President Barack Obama, a group of congressional Democrats has introduced legislation to create an official process that will allow the commander-in-chief to keep presidential records secret after he leaves office.

Ironically, Obama revoked a similar George W. Bush order in one of his first official acts as president. In 2001 Bush penned an executive order severely limiting public access to his presidential records. Shortly after swearing in, Obama killed it as part of his much-ballyhooed commitment to government transparency. At the time, the new president claimed that he was giving the American people greater access to “historic documents.”

It was the right move. The Bush Administration did indeed demonstrate a disappointing penchant for secrecy and Judicial Watch was a frontrunner in the effort to make records public. Examples include: The **** Cheney Energy Task Force records that JW pursued before the United States Supreme Court; Attorney General John Ashcroft’s order advising government agencies to withhold all discretionary disclosures; invoking executive privilege to block the House Government Reform Committee’s probe of the Campaign Financing Task Force.

If the Democrats’ proposed measure (Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2011) becomes law, former presidents will be allowed to assert a new “constitutionally based privilege” against disclosing records of their liking. Here is how it would work; the Archivist of the United States would be required to notify the former president, as well as the incumbent, of intentions to make records public. Anything that either the former or current president claims should be kept private won’t be released.

The veteran Brooklyn congressman (Edolphus Towns) who recently introduced the law in the U.S. House has yet to explain why it’s necessary. What’s certain is that Obama has failed miserably to keep his promise of running the most transparent administration in history. For examples read highlights from Judicial Watch’s testimony before Congress earlier this year. JW was invited to testify in separate House and Senate hearings during “Sunshine Week,” a national initiative by the news media, nonprofits and other organizations to promote government transparency and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Because Barry does not have a US birth certificate. that's just 1. so many more.

[HopefulTxn]

Yes TP,

But I am with RT on this.. Why?

If other presidents were able to secret away their

activity WITHOUT a law, then can you explain why it’s necessary at all?

Best Regards

Actually, the proposed legislation is not a new law - it is an attempt to amend the current law that has been on the books for years allowing Presidents to keep things secret for a period of time after their tenure as President is over:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_44_10_22.html