|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: "Most transparent administration"...NOT|
"Most transparent administration"...NOT
Posted - 4/1/2013 6:22:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
“It seems we have uncovered yet another major transparency scandal in that either EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is destroying instant messages against the law, or it is withholding them in defiance of its legal obligations," says Christopher Horner, a researcher who discovered EPA officials were using private email addresses and computer instant messaging to circumvent open-records laws. The agency is defying both Horner's FOIA requests and congressional oversight requests.
One of the EPA officials said to be involved in the apparently illicit communications is Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, whom President Obama has nominated to be the next administrator. Republicans say the hiding of official records could hurt her chances of confirmation.
Posted - 4/1/2013 7:09:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Christopher C. Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and an outspoken skeptic of climate change. Horner is also the author of three books on climate change skepticism.
"Horner has represented CEI as well as Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He has written on numerous topics in publications such as law reviews, legal and industrial trade journals, and opinion pages. He is the author of four books.
"The Liberal War on Transparency (2012)
"Power Grab: How Obama's Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America (2010)
"Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (2008)
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (2007)"
It seems that Mr. Horner has a substantial and outspokenly biased stake in the EPA's opinions.
Posted - 4/1/2013 8:24:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
What he has a stake in is
high level EPA players hiding information. By extension, the Obama administration is NOT the most transparent.
Posted - 4/1/2013 8:56:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
does someone subpoena an IM?? That's like subpoening an elevator conversation. Their not memos. They're not even emails. Certainly not snippets of Mass Destruction.
This foaming at the mouth nutcase just sounds like another hack lawsuit happy I Hate Obama crackpot.
And that Horner guy sounds like a real jerk too.
Posted - 4/1/2013 10:12:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not even going to try to discuss this topic
with someone who is going to attempt to dice it up into little pieces in order to make it meaningless.
The FACT is Obama promised to be the most transparent administration in history and is not upholding his commitment to the American people. This is not the first incidence of unlawful secrecy and obfuscation in one of his cabinet departments.
Posted - 4/1/2013 10:34:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, baloney. Go back to your playpen!
Posted - 4/1/2013 10:52:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
Lighten up cruise!!
What are you? "Demonstrably dumber than a box of rocks"?
"EVERYONE on here...but you, apparently...realized that my comment was tongue in cheek."
Posted - 4/2/2013 9:52:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
Wikipedia NOT a source: BP may have written 44% of its page
**A British Petroleum representative allegedly rewrote 44 percent of the oil giant's Wikipedia page, including the environmental sections.**
Oil giant British Petroleum is well-known for the Deepwater Oil Horizon disaster and its much-criticized handling of the cleanup's aftermath. But you might want to think twice before you read about the event, or the company's environmental record, on Wikipedia.
Angry Wikipedia editors estimate that BP has rewritten 44 percent of the page about itself, including information about its environmental performance.
BP is not directly editing its page, but instead has apparently inserted a BP representative into the editing community who provides Wikipedia editors with text.
The text is then copied "as is" onto the page by Wikipedia editors. Readers might assume its unbiased information when its, in fact, vetted by higher-ups at BP before hitting the page.
Sections edited by "User:Arturo at BP" include the sections "Alternative Energy," "Allegations of greenwashing," and "Environmental record," among others.
"Arturo BP," who identifies himself as a member of BP's press office, is providing the content for Wikipedia's BP page, especially about the company's environmental performance. He then posts a notice on the BP "talk page," where Wikipedia editors copy and paste the content as provided onto BP's page.
Arturo BP states on his User page:
I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines.
If a writer uses Wikipedia as a source where I work, the writer is tossed. Period. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Posted - 4/2/2013 11:18:07 AM | show profile | flag this post
beenthere; Point taken
inre Wikipedia being used a primary source. Your BP example is a good one (and hardly the only one, I remember Palin and Bachmann supporters doing the same thing)...I just don't think your reaction is warranted here.
Go back and look at the entry; pretty much all they do is list his books (and you can look them up on your own) and his broadcast interviews (there's that damn videotape again). His words speak for themselves. This guy is clearly the Orly Taitz of the EPA.
So...back on topic then..."Top Environmental Protection Agency officials used computer instant messages to try to circumvent open-records laws, according to a lawsuit" According to a lawsuit. "another major transparency scandal"...according to him and cruise that is.
Of course any die hard Obama hater can pursue this sort of thing (back to Taitz and even Trump for example) and even cruise has the right to call the president a socialist 'Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, and even proclaim "unlawful secrecy" without any proof, but going off on BP is getting off track. IMO.
Posted - 4/2/2013 12:16:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
EVRYONE PANIC !!!!!1!
There is shadowy govermnet within a government cabal of unelected regulators intent on destroying america via ... OMG! ..a secret plot to clean up industrial pollution!
The EPA is taking away people's freedom ('cause corporation ARE people) to throw chemical waste into rivers and soil!
Those fascists even want "Clean Air"?!?!
What exactly does that mean!? How do we know it isn't COMMUNISM?!
Posted - 4/2/2013 1:22:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
I wasn't going off on BP.
I was demonstrating that Wikipedia is not a reputable source, and if it is the first source you go to and you are quoting it, you might have to rethink your reporting skills.
I used the BP example because it was a recent article. Any other example would have been fine, too.
Posted - 4/2/2013 2:04:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
The radical left on here
don't want to discuss the real issue. Their aim is to obfuscate and deflect attention AWAY from the real issue. That's why they're always trying to change the subject.
Posted - 4/2/2013 2:18:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
The real issue, meaning that Christopher Horner is a guy who profits from opposing the EPA and the Washington Times has an extreme conservative bias?
Sure, let's discuss those.
Posted - 4/3/2013 11:58:42 AM | show profile | flag this post
The real issue
is at least three high level EPA figures using instant messaging and/or private emails to hide their communications from open-records laws. And this is not the first Obama cabinet department to be caught in this kind of misconducts.
I started the thread...I KNOW what the issue was. You, on the other hand, are trying to obfuscate to cover the administrations tracks by changing the subject.
Posted - 4/3/2013 12:47:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
You don't KNOW squat. You know only what you read in one publication: some unsupported allegations from a lawyer and Breitbart columnist whose clients have axes to grind with EPA, and those quotes appeared in, predictably, the Washington Times.
You're a poster child for news illiteracy, a growing problem in this country for anyone who believes in democracy (little D, form of government, not a political party).
Posted - 4/3/2013 1:35:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
Dearie, you're a caution
Still trying to obfuscate the issue and change the subject. Why is it so important to you to provide an alibi for the Obama administration's secrecy?
Posted - 4/3/2013 3:44:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I started the thread...I KNOW what the issue was"
And you're proud of that?? Another I-Hate-Obama conspiracy thread?? They're instant messages for chrissakes. Even for a paranoid tinfoil hat wearing basement dwelling Area 51 freak birther get that Kenyan Mao Stalin Hitler socialist out of my White House nut case....this is delusional conspiracy crap.
Unless I missed it, neither you or Mr. Horner exactly says what 'crime' the EPA actually/possibly committed, you just want to go fishing through IMs. I don't understand how a 'McDonalds or Wendys for lunch??' instant message is going to affect the country.
Email, memos, cables, any correspondence done on official government communication channels? IF it has to do with government policy?? I absolutely agree with you that that should be available to Congress. But a frivolous lawsuit like this one, cannot, in any way shape or form, be taken seriously.
Posted - 4/3/2013 3:53:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh yea, PS,
I sort of take you calling me an 'asshole' as a badge of honor (no ad hominem there right?) But jeez, that "Dearie, you're a caution"?? That's really becoming annoying in a patronizing chauvinist jerk kind of way.
And "Obama administration's secrecy?" You know, up until you pointed it out, I had no idea that a President and/or White House had secrets. Who knew.
Posted - 4/3/2013 7:22:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Still trying to obfuscate the issue and change the subject. ***
There is no issue when all you've got is one ax-grinder quoted in one conservative newspaper.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Posted - 4/3/2013 7:34:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I started the thread"
YES! And many, many, many, many, many, many others!
And in each case you lefties use facts and evidence to try to slay the hero that is cruiser. AND FAIL!!!
Because this patriot doesn't rely on facts, he relies on The Washington Times!
Posted - 4/3/2013 7:35:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
well, that's cruiztwit for you..
always proposing solutions looking for a problem to solve.. and not finding any..
Posted - 4/3/2013 9:54:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
"what 'crime' the EPA actually/possibly committed"
It was clearly spelled out...possible violations of the open-records laws. And the fact that EPA is stonewalling compounds the problem.
If Obama wants to be seen as heading the most transparent administration on record he needs to put a stop to this kind of activity. The fact that he has not...over two or more different cabinet departments...speaks volumes.
Posted - 4/3/2013 10:28:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
Looking at what I looked at; your apprehension about all of this is understandable. You know I'm loathe to agree with you anywhere, but on this one I don't think you're too far off the mark.
IF IF IF "open-records laws" are being violated, I agree, that's just plain wrong and we all know it. But Horner is obviously not the spokesman Deniers need right now.
Posted - 4/4/2013 9:30:14 AM | show profile | flag this post
the Horror! Who would do such a thing?!
"WASHINGTON (AP) — When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to find out what was going on inside Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the prosecutor in the CIA leak probe made a logical move. He dropped a grand jury subpoena on the White House for all the relevant e-mail.
One problem: Even though White House computer technicians hunted high and low, an entire week's worth of e-mail from Cheney's office was missing. The week was Sept. 30, 2003, to Oct. 6, 2003, the opening days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The White House put the best face on a bad hearing Tuesday of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, defending the administration's handling of its electronic messages.
McDevitt said that one estimate from a 2005 analysis was that more than 1,000 days of e-mail were missing from January 2003 to Aug. 10, 2005. McDevitt said "the process by which e-mail was being collected and retained was primitive and the risk that data would be lost was high." The "low end" estimate was about 470 days, he added."
Just to be clear .. this was a grand jury supeona to the highest office in the land ... not some activist in a civil suit vendatta against bureaucrats.
But, hey, no party is better at erasing tapes than the GOP!