Opinion

[Print]  [Email]        

Which part of judge's decision does Obama White House not understand?

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
10/29/09 9:22 PM PDT

Last year, federal Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) is covered under the Privacy Act. In that decision, Lamberth tartly added that  “...this court holds that under the Privacy Act, the word ‘agency’ includes the Executive Office of the President, just as the Privacy Act says.”

So this year, the Obama White House comes back in the same case and asks Lamberth to grant a motion for summary dismissal, arguing that “the White House is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and it necessarily follows that it is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act.”  

Amazing, but true. This exchange is the latest installment in one of the longest-running courtroom dramas from the Clinton administration,Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, aka "Filegate." Remember that one, when 400 FBI highly sensitive background investigative files on Republican luminaries mysteriously turned up in the Clinton White House.

Just "a bureaucratic miscue," explained President Bill Clinton at the time.

One of those luminaries sued for invasion of privacy, and with the active participation of Judicial Watch, the case has remained alive for all these years since it was first filed in 1996. If Judicial Watch wins this case, the White House and the FBI could then be held liable for damages for violating the privacy rights of the people whose files were misused.

But the Obama White House is arguing that it cannot be held liable because it is not covered by the Privacy Act, even though the act says it does and Lambert believes the act's language means what it so clearly states.

Among the more interesting of the many twists and turns this case has seen over the years is the fact former President Clinton has now come over to Judicial Watch's point of view, telling historian Taylor Branch "those files did not belong at The White House," and that they "should have been isolated and returned immediately."

Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton explains the stakes in this long-running judicial clash:

"What the Obama administration is effectively saying here is that if the White House decides to illegally compile FBI files and violate your privacy rights, tough luck. It is disturbing that the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal.
 
"It is worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House's collecting 'fishy' emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?" Fitton asked.
 
For more on the case from Judicial Watch's perspective, go here.
 



under the dome

As The Examiner reported early Friday, a glance at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s schedule can be a false forecast of his day. The Mayor’s Office released a revised schedule...

It appears that a good old-fashioned community revolt has saved a couple U.S. Post Offices in San Francisco. After residents in Bernal Heights and the Portola neighborhood...

It’s another weekend of shuttle surfing for N-Judah riders. The second of three weekend closures for the $2 million project is scheduled for this weekend. Instead of...

Supervisor Bevan Dufty is holding a hearing Monday to scrutinize efforts by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the Police Department to ensure riders on Muni...


beltway confidential

The perils of popularity! (ap) While President Obama's approval ratings are hovering at 50 percent, first lady Michelle Obama is enjoying a 62 percent...

It seems that former Treasury secretary Henry Paulson has a new book coming out. It's supposed to be an inside account of the collapse of the global banking system. Though the...

Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida agrees with our editorial last month on the heavily redacted contract for redesigning Recovery.gov. The irony we noted more than a...

Former CNN anchor and program host Lou Dobbs will be grilled tonight by Larry Kudlow on CNBC at 7:00 pm EST to discuss the economy, interest rates, immigration, TARP, health...



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

ladybug

Oct 29, 2009

It doesn't count unless BHO's people say it counts? Come on, as long as you are a part of this government, you swore that you would uphold the law of the land, Mr. President.

 

Mad Monica

Oct 29, 2009

Well, heck. What do you expect? The Obama Gang want to be able to access information on anyone, use it in any way they wish and NOT have anyone know about it. How DARE we demand to know what they're getting up to in there? It's none of our business! We're just peons who aren't bright enough to understand the smartest man in the world's political smear factory.

 

Arl

Oct 29, 2009

In true Examiner form, you don't mention what the Bush White House did in relation to this suit.

 

ggordon

Oct 30, 2009

...transparency.

 

ssquared

Oct 30, 2009

While I have not intention of defending Obama, the White House argument is being made on behalf of Rahm Emanuel's modus operandi.

He's the guy who wants to send hit teams after private citizens who are "troublemakers" in his opinioin.

He's the guy who needs to know where you live so he can have a dead horse's head put in your bed telling you to shur up.

He's the guy who will look at your tax filings for 30 years.

Rahm Emanuel wants the power to invade your privacy, threaten you and harrass you.

So just because a Federal Judge says you can't do this is NOT ENOUGH OF A REASON WHY YOU CAN'T DO THIS FOR GOOD OLE' POTTY MOUTH RAHM.

 

dan

Oct 30, 2009

IMPEACH OBAMA, IMPEACH OBAMA!!

 

ctmom

Oct 30, 2009

Hey Arl - guess what - Bush isn't President anymore! Besides Obambi was supposed to be the anti-Bush wasn't he?

 

StephenG

Oct 30, 2009

I have two words for you all to consider - Patriot Act. 'nuff said.

 

Congress Works For Us

Oct 30, 2009

StephenG on Oct 30, 2009 wrote:
I have two words for you all to consider - Patriot Act. 'nuff said.
____________

Hey, Stephen, the Dems have unassailable majorities in both houses... they could easily overturn it, and I am sure Obama would sign it.

Why haven't they done so?

(Oh, and the act was reauthorized under Democratic majorities in the last Congress as well!)

Bush ain't here no more...

 

Sunnyr

Oct 30, 2009

We have to take back the House next year so we can IMPEACH this IDIOT "president" and his little Chicago Thug in a TuTu, Rahm Emanuel. Everyone in the White House from the Minister of Propaganda, Robert "Fibbs" on up are blithering idiots and can't be trusted. They are trying feverishly to dismantle our free market system and kill capitalism once and for all. Get rid of these Marxist Twits and take back the great country that our Founders bequeathed to us. Enough is enouth!

 

PattyPat

Nov 1, 2009


http://www.meetup.com/Natural-Born-Citizen-Coalition-for-Legal-Action

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Cardinal has Luck going into Big Game showdown

Though he’s just a redshirt freshman, Andrew Luck... Full story

Entertainment

Reno Santa event inspired by SF revelers

About 5,000 Santa costume-clad folks are expected to... Full story

Entertainment

Scoop: Is J. Lo having ex tailed?

Is Jennifer Lopez playing hardball in her battle with... Full story