Obama, like Bush, seeks to expand executive secrecy
Having moved his office from the Senate to the White House, Barack Obama has exchanged perspectives as well. He is now a member of what is truly the most exclusive club on the planet, comprising those who have served as president of the United States, and he is apparently committed to trying to preserve all the rights and privileges inherent or claimed in that position.
Take, for example, his administration’s attempt to keep secret the statements of then-Vice President Dick Cheney to the FBI in the Valerie Plame investigation.
As The Washington Post reports:
A list of at least seven related conversations involving Cheney appears in a new court filing approved by Obama appointees at the Justice Department. In the filing, the officials argue that the substance of what Cheney told special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in 2004 must remain secret.
No such agreement was reached between Fitzgerald and Cheney at the time of their chat, according to a 2008 Fitzgerald letter to lawmakers. But the Bush administration rejected requests by Congress and a nonprofit group for access to two FBI accounts of the conversation, saying the material was exempt from disclosure under subpoena or the Freedom of Information Act.
The Obama administration has since agreed that the material should not be disclosed. A Justice Department lawyer at one point last month argued that vice presidents and other White House officials will decline to be interviewed in the future if they know their remarks might “get on ‘The Daily Show’ ” or be used as fodder for political enemies.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed doubt about that argument. To counter Sullivan’s skepticism, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a supporting affidavit to the new court filing that the department needs the ability to interview White House officials informally in future law enforcement investigations, and that if the Cheney interview summaries are made public, “there is an increased likelihood that such officials could feel reluctant to participate.”
If that name Lanny Breuer sounds familiar, it should. He was Bill’s Clinton’s lawyer back in the Whitewater days, and he’s no doubt making similar arguments today on behalf of the Bush/Cheney administration, as a member of the Obama administration, that he made back in the Clinton days.
“It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations,” says Melanie Sloan, head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is pushing for release. “What is wrong with this picture?”
I think she makes an excellent point. White House lawyers are trying to create a secrecy privilege that does not exist in the law, and the courts should tell them so. The natural tendency of the executive to try to expand its sphere of unchallenged power must be checked by its competing branches, as it wasn’t for much of the Bush administration.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
136 comments Add your comment
RW-(the original)
July 3rd, 2009
9:10 am
Worth repeating? I repeat/you decide
However, I also get repeated emails and comments on the street from people who tell me they come to the blog but are put off by the aggressive incivility they see here. They too have a voice that should be heeded.–Jay B
What a load on so many levels. For one caving in to an orchestrated email campaign is bad enough but admitting you’ve done it is just begging for more. I highly doubt that you can’t walk down the street without everyman stopping you to complain about Andy either. If there was one iota of truth to what you’re saying amvet would have been banned ages ago. All that one knows is personal attack and plagiarism, but it doesn’t matter to you because he holds your views and does a sufficient amount of brown nosing.
Nice twisting of my words too. I never said that when Andy finally retaliates over the endless personal attacks you allow on him that he is espousing mainstream conservative thought. You could man up and just say you’ve been looking for an excuse to ban him all along but being a good lib you have to hide behind the skirts of all the “folks on the street” cowering in fear of your blog because of one poster. One that your toadies can’t can’t quit talking about I might add.
Shawny
July 3rd, 2009
9:26 am
What? Yet another campaign promise broken?!?!?
josef nix
July 3rd, 2009
9:29 am
Shawny..
“What? Yet another campaign promise broken?!?!?”
I’m shocked!
Southern Comfort Zone
July 3rd, 2009
9:29 am
I say release the information. Everything.
clyde
July 3rd, 2009
9:32 am
I don’t have a clue what this first post is all about.We’re being accused of aggressive inclivity by unknowns?
I was going to say that I have repeatedly posted that I don’t trust Obama,but I’m not going to do that now.Not on your life.
Southern Comfort Zone
July 3rd, 2009
9:33 am
Jay, are the programmers making any headway on the loss of posts during screen refreshes problem.
RW-(the original)
July 3rd, 2009
9:36 am
clyde,
Sorry, it comes from here.
Cherokee
July 3rd, 2009
9:39 am
I pretty much just lurk here, but jay did the right thing – andy didn’t passionately promote his conservative views, he attacked anyone who had the audacity to believe differently than him. And worse, he tossed out his venom while hiding behind the veneer of being a good Christian.
Say whatever you want RW, do it passionately, but do that without the personal attacks, and you won’t have any problems.
As to the topic at hand, very disappointing. And Jay’s post proves another thing – that libs have no fear of attacking their own if they mess up. Did Wooten ever criticize Bush for anything?
thomas
July 3rd, 2009
9:45 am
Actually Bookman didn’t attack any of his own he shielded his criticism from actually going after Obama. Read what he wrote his harshest comment comes near the end but he deflects the force by saying WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS, he only said that to avoid saying the white house.
Who does Bookman thinks tells the lawyers what to do?
Why is this a shock to anyone, Obama has follwed one after the other of Bush policies. Policies many in the left were all to willing to attack Bush on but now they are somehow either needed or Obama has to enact this policy because of the way Bush messed things up.
Does anyone know of the campaign promises that have been kept, I know they all break them, cause they don’t mean them. But I think this may be a record for promises broke in the 1st 6 months. Transparency hahaha
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
July 3rd, 2009
9:45 am
Here’s what we now know:
a) Obumbler was just making up stuff, with no regard for fact or reality, during the campaign;
b) Obumbler has adopted much of that which President Bush was doing because Bush was doing things well;
c) President Bush, a true American hero, had his name wrongly tarred by the effete liberals.
Now on to the economy where Obumbler’s mixed bag of mumbo-jumbo has had no effect on the rate of decline, Obumbler told us he had answers, but it doen’t look to be working. Leads me to say, Obumbler lied and people’s job’s were fried.
At least when President Bush was there we had a successful business man who earned his advanced degrees on his own, now all we have is a professional leech (i.e. community orgranizer) who got his degrees through pre-Ricci affirmative action.
thomas
July 3rd, 2009
9:51 am
Cherokee,
Bookman has allowed personal attacks for a while and continues to even today. I was “personally” attacked yesterday, for simply making a comment about the topic given. A poster didn’t like what I said and chose to try and attack my charecter and what I had done in my personal life, without knowing anything about me. That does not bother me as it has been an allowed policy here for a while.
The only difference is that the poster I speak of has been banned before, because they do follow the Bookman thinking code and suck up a lil, Bookman changes his rules for those types. Which is fine his blog his rules, however biased they may be. Andy was a joke in my lil opinion but he has just as much of a right as someone with a more liberal perspective does to say what they wish.
Paul
July 3rd, 2009
9:51 am
I’ll repeat again: the principle is Executive Privilege, not the facts of any particular example.
I mused that the next pres would do exactly what Bush did in this regards, if not go further. Sometimes I hate it when I’m right.
But in other areas of stalling and secrecy, it’s not Exec Priv, it’s (I’m guessing) potential embarrassment to the Democratic Party and certain leaders. Justice Dept stalling release of the torture investigation. CIA’s been done for months. Justice has it. ACLU’s been back to court time and again. Justice is ’still reviewing.’
That’s not Executive Privilege. That’s politics.
clyde
July 3rd, 2009
9:52 am
I said once before that I wouldn’t like to see Whiner thrown away and I’ll repeat that now.I don’t see how anyone can feel intimidated by words on a blog.I sit here looking out the window at my driveway while thinking up tidbits to post and I could spot Whiner coming in if it came to that.
josef nix
July 3rd, 2009
9:52 am
Am Vet–you here? You didn’t expect a WHAT? “Our chief weapons are…”
Cherokee
July 3rd, 2009
9:52 am
Not sure, thomas, but my guess is that Jay knows that Obama could make a call and direct his lawyers to handle it differently.
mm
July 3rd, 2009
9:53 am
Wyld Byll,
Bush was a successful business man? You really are a partisan hack.
As for layoffs, lay the blame where it belongs – greedy CEO’s laying off workers for short term gains while pocketing tens of millions of dollars.
Kayaker 71
July 3rd, 2009
9:57 am
Bookman,
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country was based on freedom for everyone…. not just you and your liberal pals. The tone for this blog was established a long time ago both during the primaries and during the campaign. You must have seen where it was going at the time and you seemed to have no problem letting it happen. Granted, most of the posters on this blog are very polarized. Some do it with a lot of style, some are not so stylish. Some are in your face, some very reflective. Andy just seems to be different. Where were you when Trash was handing out those choice words about McCain and Palin? Mean and vicious? You bet, but you let it happen for way too long before doing away with that little pri*ck. Bottom line…. there is still a lot of viciousness on this blog because of no middle of the road posters. Each of us feels passionately about what we say and Andy is no exception. We come here most each day to vent our feelings about issues that are very important to us. You have set the scene for most everything that happens on this blog. You remind me of Miss Piggy…. MOI?
Redneck Convert
July 3rd, 2009
10:00 am
Well, I say keep everything secret. My President done it right. He didn’t let nobody know much about anything. They still don’t know much about the waterboarding and what went on there. And half the time nobody knowed where his VP even was. People still don’t know who was on the committee that decided the Energy Policy. If they don’t know much about what you’re doing they can’t haul off and blast you.
At least this Obama is doing something right. Everything else is dead wrong but he ain’t letting snoopers in on what was said during this Fitzgerald investigation.
It’s my opinion that things is just too polite ever since Bookman banned the Whiner. People ain’t calling names and what good’s a debate if you can’t blast your opponents and their Mamas? Heck, if we’re forced to stick to the issues people are going to fall asleep at the keyboard. It’s like a redneck fight at a honky-tonk where they just say please and thank you and I appreciate your point of view but here’s what I think.
Have a good 4th of July everybody. It’s going to be tough without lemonade but this Ferguson guy ruint it for me.
jstrick
July 3rd, 2009
10:02 am
Obama has been very disappointing regarding secrecy and civil liberties. It’s amazing that the same folks who complained about what Bush was doing are now fully supportive of Obama. Bush was wrong on secrecy and Obama is also wrong. It does not matter if you “trust” one politician more, it is simply wrong to try to have so many secrets for seemingly no reason.
It seems to me that we already know so much of what happened, why not put it all out there. What exactly is the point in hiding what Cheney said? Who would it hurt? The case is closed, so what’s the purpose? I know Cheney is popular and all so it may hurt his ratings but people love him so much I doubt it will significantly hurt him.
@Wyld Byll Hyltnyr: At what business was George Bush successful?
Southern Comfort Zone
July 3rd, 2009
10:02 am
Given that Obama has essentially behaved more like a Republican than a Democrat, why all the animosity from the right. It is as though some of you are upset about something else. Something that you are just plain scared to say. Instead, you whine. Why does the right have so many whiners.
Normal
July 3rd, 2009
10:02 am
OH, come on y’all, what the freak…Let it drop…It’s over, for Pete’s sake. Can’t we all just get along?
RW-(the original)
July 3rd, 2009
10:05 am
WOW! It took a whopping 57 minutes from the time of the original blog post until the race card got played. Progress?
ByteMe
July 3rd, 2009
10:05 am
A Justice Department lawyer at one point last month argued that vice presidents and other White House officials will decline to be interviewed in the future if they know their remarks might “get on ‘The Daily Show’ ” or be used as fodder for political enemies.
Which, of course, made it fodder for The Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231571&title=Cheney-Predacted
Normal
July 3rd, 2009
10:05 am
I fear that President Obama has fallen into the power trap. You know the one…power corupts and absolute power is really neat…
————
And I’ll tell you truthfully, I’m becoming a little concerned that I vboted for him…Just sayin’
Southern Comfort Zone
July 3rd, 2009
10:06 am
RW played the race card. Shame on you.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
July 3rd, 2009
10:09 am
mm 9:53 am
Bush was a successful business man?
jstrick 10:02 am
@Wyld Byll Hyltnyr: At what business was George Bush successful?
And so we see more evidence of the blind (and, I might add) unfounded loathing caused by BDS. Your answer is below.
I was a minority investor in the George W. Bush led group that bought a floundering baseball franchise, the Texas Rangers.When we sold one of the best run MLB franchise, the proceeds represented a 32.37% CAGR on my original investment. Even with BDS, one can’t claim that wasn’t a successful turnaround.
Looks like you boys need to apolgixe to Ol’ Wyld Byll and W.
josef nix
July 3rd, 2009
10:10 am
NORMAL–so, you’re back from doing G-d’s work, are you! I fear that President Obama has fallen into the power trap. You know the one…power corupts and absolute power is really neat…
“And I’ll tell you truthfully, I’m becoming a little concerned that I vboted for him…Just sayin’”
Uh-hunh. Told you so, didn’t I? Jus’ sayin’
AmVet
July 3rd, 2009
10:13 am
josef, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!! (NORML, I’m still laughing at that Benny Hill skit)
I’m glad that in addition to the self-righteous who get their ample and supposedly persecuted panties in a wad, we can have a lot of fun here.
Re the topic at hand,
Once the POTUS senses he can get even more power, it is like blood in the water for a shark.
Ask William Clinton.
The imperial presidency. Nearly perfected under George Bush.
And given the history of the previous two egomaniacal CICs, as well as the enormous, unfounded, almost historical adoration of his loyalists, I am not at all surprised an emboldened Obama is working on upping the latest generation of royal powers.
And broken promises at transparency. I guess once you’ve seen the bounty hidden in the inner sanctum it’s easy to become drunk with it’s allure.
Line Item vetoes, the spineless US Congress almost completely abdicating it’s role of being a check and balance (as well as the defenders of we the people), back room closed door “deals”, signing statements by the zillions, a shadow government that shreds the damning paperwork before leaving office.
Payoffs, political and otherwise, out the ___.
Washington DC. The best government dirty money can buy…
josef nix
July 3rd, 2009
10:22 am
Am Vet–Pulled out my copy of Juvenal…wonder how he would have made out blogging here?
Paul
July 3rd, 2009
10:23 am
Question: which functions of the Executive should remain privileged? All? None? Some? What are the criteria?
TnGelding
July 3rd, 2009
10:23 am
The more things change…
I think the key there was “informally.”
Boy, what a difference 30 years make:
Russia to allow US arms shipments to Afghanistan
MOSCOW (AP) – Russia will allow the U.S. to ship weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, a top Kremlin aide said Friday in a gesture aimed at bolstering U.S. military operations and improving strained ties between Washington and Moscow. The deal is expected to be signed during President Barack Obama’s visit to Moscow next week, Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko said.
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 3rd, 2009
10:27 am
Pardon me for the delayed response but I had to run to Publix to get the ribeyes and yard bird for tomorrow’s Independence Day extravaganza and cookout, between the Weber gas grill and the monster fireworks display planned for the evening, I am going to emit just as much carbon as al-Gore does, for at least one day.
andy didn’t passionately promote his conservative views, he attacked anyone who had the audacity to believe differently than him.
Cherokee- I invite you to take a tour of the bookman archives
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/06/
and while you are there, be sure to pick out one example of me attacking another blogger before I commented on the blog topic and before someone else posted a comment directed at me.
Good luck with that!
It is not my fault that liberalism is such a defenseless position and because of that, the liberals here have to attack me and set the tone of this blog. I am not at all saying that I am with out fault, sometimes I do “passionately” speak out, perhaps if I wasn’t being attacked from all directions, I would not become so crude, but then again, most of the things that liberals advocate on these blogs are far cruder than anything that I have ever said. For example, I feel that abortion is a heinous act and as such, I give no quarter when speaking of it.
Another thing, while we are on the subject of civility, somehow I get the feeling that George Bush, Sarah Palin, John McCain, et al somehow fall outside the realm of deserving reasoned and measured tones while they are being discussed, and I fail to understand why only one side of the “debate” is required to be “civil” when we have so much evidence to the contrary.
None the less, I plan on toning it down a bit, save for a few personal pronouns and I would hope that you liberals would do the same, hahahahahahaha, yeah, right.
Uh, last look.
Southern Comfort Zone
July 3rd, 2009
10:28 am
Well, the real money was made by investing in the Carlyle Group.
booger
July 3rd, 2009
10:31 am
Interesting to note that in this article about “Obama” and secrecy, The word Obama is used 4 times while Bush or Cheney is used 8 times.
ByteMe
July 3rd, 2009
10:33 am
So let me see if I understand the ramifications of this decision:
- If he keeps the interviews private, he’s get slammed on the far left and by constitutionalists.
- If he lets the interviews see the light of day, he gets slammed by the far right and by authoritarians.
The far right is crazier. I’d be more afraid of them, too.
josef nix
July 3rd, 2009
10:33 am
booger @ 10:31–kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
mm
July 3rd, 2009
10:36 am
Wyld Byll,
When’s the last time you saw a sports franchise go under? Cite a real example please. It’s not like he started the franchise from the ground up. He bought the team with papa’s money.
AmVet
July 3rd, 2009
10:37 am
Paul, THE question of the hour!
My perception is that the MSM moves this conversation in the WRONG direction.
They are interested first and foremost, it seems, in the salacious and the “dirt” that drives their ratings and sales.
And if that actually helps the American people, well bully for us! That’s just icing on the cake.
But their “responsibility” sure seems misdirected and self-serving…
Normal
July 3rd, 2009
10:43 am
josef nix
July 3rd, 2009
10:10 am
————–
Yes you did…now I’m going to go punish myself and pull weeds…I know G-d made them just to tick me off…
Bosch
July 3rd, 2009
10:44 am
In my opinion, the POTUS can’t reveal every bit of information that goes on in the White House. It’s just not practical. In the former administration’s case, there was so much bumbling of things that it made one wake up and wonder, where did all this incompetence originate – which made one wonder about the business conducted at the White House. With this administration, it seems things are going pretty well for now, so I have no reason to wonder what in the hell they are doing behind closed doors.
As Severus Snape says in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire “if we are truly discover the meaning of these events, perhaps we should, for the time being, let them unfold.”
AmVet
July 3rd, 2009
10:46 am
The Texas Rangers???
Floundering?
The perennial door mats of the AL?
They floundered before, during and after the soon to be Bungler-in-Chief did nothing good for them.
If that miserable hijacked organization, MLB had made Curious George their Dufus in Charge, he could have worked on further ruining baseball instead of America and the world.
And for that reason alone, but also for his many other crimes against that beautiful game, Bud Selig should be waterboarded….
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
July 3rd, 2009
10:49 am
mm 10:36 am
Your response is textbook BDS in its purest form.
When’s the last time you saw a sports franchise go under?
When was another time where the initial investors receive a 32.37% CAGR? Sure sports franchises go up, but this one outperformed any other that was ever sold – save one or two of which I may not be aware.
It’s not like he started the franchise from the ground up.
Wrong, he turned it around. This franchise had substantial problems and W’s leadership made it a model of best practices for other teams.
He bought the team with papa’s money.
Hey, I invested in the deal and I assure you that the money I put in and the bank financing that we guarantied was not “daddy’s money.”
Why is it so hard for you liberals to admit that President Bush was successful at anything?
Conservatives have no such problem, we readily admit that Monica Lewinsky didn’t sweat much for a fat girl and that she would have been pretty hot if she lost 40 lbs.
Paul
July 3rd, 2009
10:54 am
ByteMe
[[If he keeps the interviews private, he’s get slammed on the far left and by constitutionalists.]]
Actually, a number of constitutionalists support the concept, not oppose it.
AmVet
Which is why I overstated a bit to make the point: “it isn’t about the particulars, it’s about the principle.”
Same reasoning by the Court upholding those $##%@ church member’s rights to disrupt funerals. It’s a free speech issue. That, plus that particular statute was much too broad.
Bosch
Snape did have some good points.
As far as bumbling – consider that each series of events and circumstances are so particular, they are ripe for challenge and litigation.
Plus, could the ‘bumbling’ have been the chaos ‘uproar and point counterpoint’ driven by his opponents? Y’know, the outrage and indignity over this and that torture report I referenced sure seems muted in comparison to a few years’ back. As much as I dislike such comparisons, this one seems to have some basis in fact.
On an important note, got a new cell phone. My BattleStar Galactica theme wouldn’t transfer but I found a new one, from the series itself (not some other performers) and it was free! Just a bit of editing to adjust the start time and I’ll be off and running.
Gotta keep our priorities straight – So Say We All!
S GA dem
July 3rd, 2009
10:57 am
Wyld man – You’re dead wrong on your man, W – He was a horrible business man -
Bosch
July 3rd, 2009
10:58 am
Paul,
If you are out there (and not baking your birthday cake) – you should really check out the video on the front page of comedycentral.com. It’s called “Shut up Mark Sanford.”
And for you and I, sane jane, and all the other Episcopalians out there, the last minute is totally hilarious.
ByteMe
July 3rd, 2009
10:59 am
Paul: strict constitutionalists would have a problem with the executive branch asserting non-constitutional privileges that somehow shield it from subpeonas by the judiciary branch.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
July 3rd, 2009
10:59 am
S GA dem 10:57 am
I am glad that you have your (probably uniformed) second-hand opinion. However, as an actual minority investor he was greart and the investment’s performance was great.
Why should your view take precedence over my actual experience?
Bosch
July 3rd, 2009
11:02 am
Paul,
Oh, see you are out there –
Yes, I think it is important to look at a series of events in order to consider them a success of failure – and well……….let’s just say Bush never seemed to have the Midas touch with anything he tried. Oh, of course, it could be critics and the media that made him seem alot worse, but hindsight is 20/20 and no, as a collective, I don’t see Bush as being that successful. With Obama, it’s still early, and we can evaluate later as the events unfold.
Oh, I’m cell phone jealous.
So say we all indeed.
Bosch
July 3rd, 2009
11:07 am
Paul,
And another important thing to ask:
What kind of birthday cake ya’ baking?
booger
July 3rd, 2009
11:07 am
Josef Nix,
…Kinda makes you wonder….
Not really. Jay just doesn’t have it in him to be critical of his “Main Man”. There are so many important things to be discussed, but we are pretty well stuck with Palin or Stanford unless he can weave in a shot at Bush or Cheney.