Group sues for Obama White House visitor list

[Contrary1]

:nopity: Amusing, in more ways than one. Time for Sarah to weigh in on this matter.

"The nonprofit conservative group Judicial Watch has sued the U.S. Secret Service after the Obama administration again denied a request for copies of the list of visitors to the White House.

The records are being sought by journalists and public interest groups to help determine who is influencing White House policy on health care, the economy and a host of other issues.

Under the Obama policy, most of the names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. After the Secret Service and the White House denied a request for those records, Judicial Watch filed suit on Monday in federal court in Washington.

Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama White House argues that the visitor records belong to the White House, not the Secret Service. White House records are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, as agency records would be. Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled twice during the Bush administration that White House visitor logs belong to the Secret Service, which creates and maintains them, and must be released..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34347510/ns/politics-white_house/

[babylonsister]

1. I thought a majority of the names had already been released.

Guess not.

[county worker]

2. Who was at Cheney's energy meetings?

[Frances]

3. My first thought too

After we get Cheney's list, then we can discuss Obama's IMO.

[Kerrytravelers]

4. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

:applause:

[BOSSHOG]

6. I'm sure

Judicial Watch has been working tirelessly for the past 8 years to get that information about Cheney's meetings to the public. No way a "conservtive nonprofit" would have an agenda.

[Dr. Strange]

11. Oh, they have been.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_1270.shtml

Larry Klayman may be an ass, but he's an equal opportunity ass. He pretty much hates everyone. I don't know if he has kids, but if he did, he'd be suing them to find out what they had for breakfast.

[arcadian]

7. So it's not Okay for Bush?

But Okay for Obama? Transparency, I seem to recall, Obama running on that platform.

[Forkboy]

16. And conversely, if we actually wanted to know that then we can't complain about this much.

[SpiralHawk]

5. "Don't give it up." - Jeff Gannon (R - Hooker)

"Sell it."

- Jeff Gannon (R - Official Bush White House B & D Male Hooker)

[polichick]

8. What happened to that transparency thing? nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Great.

No security risk- released ex post facto

Should be sop

[bigtree]

10. judicial watch is scum

[951-Riverside]

12. They're questioning my Obama!

:cry: low life scum.

[paulsby]

14. maybe true, but irrelevant

to the issue

[bigtree]

15. no it isn't

I wouldn't follow that bunch anywhere. Feel free, though.

[paulsby]

17. i judge issues based on their validity

not who brings them up.

[bigtree]

18. It's foolish to give this group ANY credence

. . . or credit.

Have at it.

[paulsby]

19. the issue is tangential to who brings it up

only a blind partisan (imo) thinks like you do.

have at it

[AndyA]

13. We were promised transparency. The White House belongs to the American people.

We have a right to know who is coming and going and influencing policy.

Why the secrecy, what are they hiding? :shrug: