White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives

[Beacool]

Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul.

By Peter Nicholas
July 22, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives.

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said, "We are reviewing our policy on access to visitor logs and related litigation."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,1752248.story

[uponit7771]

1. No they didn't, the list was already disclosed (link). The US M$M isn't a credible source of info

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8541538#8541727

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

3. Tell me about it. Schumer's thugs have been dug in, too. The DoubleTalk Express rolls on.

.

[Redhead Irish]

46. CREW asked for more than that

From the request:




http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/FOIA%20Request%20(6-22-09).pdf

Are there announcements for all the visits made by these individuals?

[karynnj]

80. That seems an unreasonable request to me

far exceding what anyone has ever given out.

[Better Believe It]

75. So President Obama released the list before he decided to release the list in response to a lawsuit?

What kind of nonsense are you peddling here?

Source: AP

Obama on Wednesday night released the list of visits by health care executives after a government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, announced it planned to sue to try to get White House visitor logs. Only names and dates were released, not the visitors' titles or employers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j904hBjTq0B-AklYcG2sbK0d76dQD99K0OI80

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

5. At this point, this ain't working against the President,

It's working against us!

Let's just make it clear,
that this President wasn't the first one to try this,
so this ain't "His" idea.....
and the ones that will be hurt won't be just the President,
it will be all of us.

If someone doesn't understand that,
then as far as I'm concerned,
they are no better than the Republicans... period.

[Autumn]

6. Now I wonder. does CREW think

that there are more visitors that were not posted on the web site list? It seems stupid do this if the information is available.

[Beacool]

10. I'm not sure what they're up to,

but this is the second time they go after the WH visitor's list.

[Better Believe It]

7. I think these people also defended George W. Bush's secrecy.

I wonder how many of those who defend keeping these lists of White House visitors a secret, also defended George W. Bush when he refused to release his list of White House visitors.

Now they claim that CREW is a mainstream media source (MSM) for this story! More hogwash!

Here's the original news link:



CREW SUES SECRET SERVICE OVER REFUSAL TO RELEASE WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE EXEC VISITOR LOGS

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/41551

[TexasObserver]

8. Recommend

If this was the Bush White House, there would be +50 recommends already.

[ProSense]

9. "If this was the Bush White House," but it isn't

List has already been [/b>.

[Beacool]

11. Yeah, but they still are threatening to litigate.

Do they think that the list is not complete and that the WH is hiding something?

[ProSense]

12. Who cares? CREW pulls this crap all the time. n/t

[Beacool]

13. OK, then.........

:shrug:

[ProSense]

16. What does that mean?

The list was published. CREW tried to pull a fast one. They cited names, and the list is complete.

The WH met with these people. So what?

[Better Believe It]

14. Right. Those damn liberals and civil libertarians are always pulling crap!

Pinkos!!!!

[ProSense]

15. Anyone who demands a list that's already been published is stupid.

Period.

[Better Believe It]

18. Anyone who believes that's what CREW is demanding is even more stupid!

Or is just trying to use that misleading and false claim to obscure the fact that CREW and other progressives are demanding the release of ALL attendance lists at ALL White House healthcare meetings, not just one of those meetings.

Period.

I've had enough of your sophistry and misinformation.

You're now on ignore.

[ProSense]

22. That makes no sense. "You're now on ignore." Figures. n/t

[masuki bance]

42. Become informed.

http://www.memeorandum.com/090722/p45#a090722p45

Peter Nicholas / Los Angeles Times:
White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives — Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul.

Discussion:
Greg Sargent / The Plum Line: White House Won't Disclose List Of Health Industry Visitors …
Bill Dedman / msnbc.com: Obama won't disclose health care meetings
Josh Orton / MyDD: Secrecy, Even If It's Obama
Zachary Roth / TPMMuckraker: Yet More Obama Secrecy: Won't Release Info On Visits From Health-Care Execs
Buck Naked Politics: Obama Increasingly “Bush Lite”? Secrecy & Signing Statements
Vincent Rossmeier / Salon: Obama adopts Bush's arguments for secrecy
Michael Riley / Denver Post: Amid static, White House hails strides of stimulus
Paul Blumenthal / Sunlight Foundation: White House Refuses to Disclose Visits From Health Care Lobbyists, Execs
Think Progress: ThinkFast: July 22, 2009 — ThinkProgress has launched a new Twitter feed.
Dakinikat / The Confluence: Dubya 2 Does it Again!
Taylor Marsh: Health Care a Symbol of Worse to Come if Obama Fails
Emptywheel: A New Mission for the WH Press Corps
David Kurtz / Talking Points Memo: Deja Vu All Over Again
Michelle Malkin: Knock, knock. Who's there? Obama's not telling
James Joyner / Outside The Beltway: Obama: Health Exec Visits Secret
Libby Spencer / The Impolitic: No change in White House secrecy
Greg Pollowitz / Media Blog: So Much For Watching Obama's Secret, Backroom Health-Care Deals on CSPAN
John Aravosis / AMERICAblog News: LA Times: White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives

[ProSense]

43. Why don't you take your own advice instead of posting

a series of articles which were addressed at the time. The WH policy is under review, and it's not the Secret Service's call to release lists.

Now, what does that have to do with the current request for a list of names that have already been released?

[masuki bance]

44. If you would read the request, it's a request for the frequency of visits.

But, it fits your persona to keep slamming your head into a wall and denying the obvious.

[ProSense]

45. Oh please, that's really dumb.

They make a claim about secret visitors who are no secret. Obama met with them, big deal.

But, it fits your persona to keep slamming your head into a wall and denying the obvious.

Actually, I think the frequent disappointment must be causing you pain and stress. You're the one expending energy trying to prove BS nonsense is relevant.

[masuki bance]

50. BS nonsense? You just wrote an OP reporting that the WH has attempted to

address this. Why would they do that, if they already released everything that was relevant?

[ProSense]

69. The list of names is the same as the list on the WH website. Yes

it's BS nonsense.

[Prism]

82. I resent people keeping their time-travel devices to themselves

Yesterday afternoon, I read claim after claim that the list had already been published.

And then the administration released the list last night.

Now, clearly, there were many posters leaping across temporal barriers to claim the administration had already done what it had yet to do.

As much as I enjoy Star Trek enjoining political life, I cannot support the continued monopolization of this technology by the PR department of the presidency.

I'd like a congressional investigation.

[Beacool]

83. Good one!!!

:rofl:

[Prism]

92. Keep up the good fight

Good faith accountability is vital in every administration, even the ones we voted for. Especially the ones we voted for, as we share responsibility for it being there.

Threads like these remind me of that old adage. "Dear Jesus, please save me from your followers." Despite my differences with the administration on the economy and LGBT issues, I'm still glad I voted for the President.

But man if some of his followers don't actively test that goodwill with the constant stream of lies, propaganda, and "thin-lipped loyalty enforcement".

[Beacool]

99. I hear you!!

:pals:

[Autumn]

31. I went to the CREW site and

read their report. Seems to me they are looking for other names and how often they were there.

[Beacool]

32. Thanks for checking.

I'm still at work and pretty busy.

;)

[yourguide]

17. Your pattern on DU is obvious

1. post positive Hillary thread
2. post negative Obama thread
3. post positive clinton admintration thread
4. post negative Obama adminstration thread

lather, rinse, repeat.

Enough with the wing nut talking points.

[Beacool]

19. CREW is a RW group?????

:eyes:

[yourguide]

23. No but your post has been debunked

yet I cant seem to find any of your posts praising obama.

[salguine]

57. Are we just supposed to praise Obama now? "Why haven't you praised Obama!" Next

you'll want to know why we haven't constructed a proper altar to him somewhere in our house. Truth is, he's fucking up too much. Between these closed-door meetings where HMO and Big Pharma executives control of the health care debate, and putting douchebags from Monsanto and Goldman Sachs in charge of everything, continuing with warrantless wiretapping, caving in to the credit card companies on usurious interest rates, I'm wondering what the fuck I voted for him for. Can you honestly defend any of these things, or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "La la la la, praise him, praise him, la la la"?

[yourguide]

62. Oh RW talking points how very.

Again, this nonsense has already been debunked.

[salguine]

64. "RW talking points". Brilliant. Are you high!? All of these things

are easily verifiable by a dozen different news sources. I think you need to consider the possibility that you are quite insane. Ask your doctor if putting down the crack pipe, waking the fuck up, opening your eyes and having a look around is right for you.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[masuki bance]

20. What's wrong with positive Clinton posts?

You got a problem with Hillary?

[yourguide]

21. Nope have a problem with the dead enders that continue to work against

the current democratic president in office.

[CakeGrrl]

38. Agreed. It's silly to see the attempts to fly under the radar

So as to hang around. If you don't support the president, and I've seen several of her comments that make that clear, why pretend to when it's so transparent?

Oh well, as I said below, it doesn't change the fact that Obama is in the WH. And I doubt he's noticed. :evilgrin:

[ErinBerin84]

40. yeah

It's not so much the negative type threads and positive Hillary threads that bug me, it's the posting of RW stuff (like the article from a Democrat who claimed he'd be voting for McCain or the teleprompter shit) under the guise of "Oh, I thought it was funny." Right. I'll rec legit negative threads (I rec'd the Krugman thread), but the pattern is pretty obvious.

[Baltoman991]

24. Mind if

I K & R your post?

I've noticed that pattern here by many in my time here. It's why I don't frequent the board much. It's like they salivate all over the place as soon as they can find something negative to post about Obama.

[yourguide]

25. I know...

they're like a bunch of mini lieberman's.

[Beacool]

27. Lieberman???

Oh, that's just too funny!!!

:rofl:

[yourguide]

29. Sort of.

[Autumn]

26. I don't think I have seen Bea post a

negative Obama thread. Got a link?

[yourguide]

28. try this one to start

then these, the pattern is obvious:

[Autumn]

30. I've seen those

news articles about Obama posted here by other DUers also , I think they were all about policy which is worth discussing, if the policy is detrimental to Obama well thats politics .If people can't stand to see them then they need to work on the media and put a stop to their reporting. The Health care salesman he sucks, was funny as hell and she even stated that was why she posted it. Yeah I got to agree a lot of positive posts about Hillary, but as a person who respects and admires Hillary I enjoy them.

[yourguide]

33. Keep going back through GD-P

The pattern is obvious...pro hillary, anti-obama.

I have no problem with positive hillary posts but Bea is obviously a dead ender who has yet to accept our current president is in fact president.

I certainly didnt see her post a negative thread over the "reset button" fiasco.

[Beacool]

34. Because the translators at State screwed that up, not Hillary.

Unless she now speaks Russian.....

:eyes:

[yourguide]

35. Who is in charge of the state department?

Right, got it...you just keep digging yourself in deeper.

[Beacool]

47. There's no arguing with irrational people..........

:eyes:

[CakeGrrl]

36. Yes, it's there.

The passive-aggression is tiresome, but what're you gonna do? It won't change who's in the WH, even if she's taking a lonnnnnng time to work out her...grief.

[Autumn]

37. As I said I don't see them

as anti- Obama, I make no secret of the fact that I am a Hillary supporter, neither does Beacool so I look for her Hillary posts, I would have loved to see Hillary win the Presidency but she didn't, Obama did and it's all good. Like I said I see them as news posts on some of Obamas policies , what I find disturbing is when people take the criticism personally, like my fundy half sister did with bush, she hasn't talked to our brother in four years because he DARED criticize bush, so he's dead to her. And I have no idea what the "reset button" fiasco was , must have been on vacation.

[yourguide]

41. I have no problem with people being contructive with their

criticism of Obama but when all Bea posts are critical posts of obama and positive posts on hillary the dead ender mentality is pretty obvious.

go back through GDP...I'm not the only one who sees it.

[karynnj]

81. True - but the media has written positive and negative stories - she posts just negative

I have no problem with the positive HRC threads.

[FrenchieCat]

39. There will be a denial that the pattern that is hitting us upside the head exists!

Deadenders in denial is a fascinating sight to see.

Like I said in an earlier post; the emperor has no clothes! :rofl:

[Beacool]

48. Obama apologists who think that he is infallible like the Pope

are even more fun to watch.

:rofl:

[jenmito]

49. Now you're using the RW talking point that his supporters think he's infallable?

Your MO has been obvious since the primaries. Get over it. HILLARY did.

p.s. Don't you think Obama is gorgeous? :rofl:

[firedupdem]

54. Well, she posted the right wing teleprompter crap here...

said her friends called her happy to celebrate when Sen. Kennedy got ill. Nothing should surprise us.

[salguine]

53. Fuck that. These closed-door, top secret meetings were bullshit when Bush did it, and

they're bullshit when Obama does it, too. You don't for a minute think there was anyone in that meeting with the best interests of the American public at heart, do you?

The pattern of defending every single thing Obama does, no matter how straight out of the Bush playbook it is, is far more tiresome as anything Beacool has said. Can you refute Beacool's post with a sound, reasoned counter-argument? I thought not.

[Beacool]

59. No, they can't .

That's why she and her little posse prefer to attack. How dare anyone question the president on anything? He's supposed to be treated differently than the other 43 that preceded him.

:crazy:

[yourguide]

63. No, your pattern is clear Bea

You are a dead ender, nothing more. It's obvious based even on this thread which was quickly debunked.

I have no posse, I am just tired of seeing your anti-obama posts...if I wanted to see them I'd go to freerepuke.com

[Beacool]

66. It wasn't debunked.

Go read the responses to the other thread I linked further below.

Regardless, I don't really care what some of you may think. Your group's standard response to any criticism of Obama is to attack the messenger. Well, you're going to have a busy 4 years, criticism comes with the job.

[yourguide]

70. Dead ender to the end I see.

There are three other threads debunking your right wing trash in GDP but I know you wont read them...

[Autumn]

78. You do have options per the DU rules,

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

[Autumn]

67. 'Little posse' good

one. I like it. Can you imagine how it will be when the media and the pukes start going after Obama on a regular basis how their world will implode? That will be a mess.

[Beacool]

71. Their standard MO is to belittle those who dare to disagree.

The usual crowd circled the wagons and went on attack mode. The facts are that the WH released a list yesterday due to CREW's threat of litigation:

"President Barack Obama has hosted at least 27 meetings with some of the most influential private health-industry executives in the country in an effort to placate or at least quiet potential opponents of reform in what remains a tenuous legislative process.

Under pressure from a good-government organization, the White House released on Wednesday evening the names of industry officials whom the president has met and the dates of their meetings. The records show that, from early February to late June, the White House has invited 15 of the health care and pharmaceutical industry's most powerful players."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/obamas-private-health-car_n_243115.html

But, let's not let the facts cloud their judgment when it's far easier to go after the meanie who is criticizing the WH.

:eyes:

BTW, thanks for your support!!

:hug:

[Autumn]

73. I'm more than

happy to support your threads. They are always good ones.:pals:

[Beacool]

74. Thank you!!

:hi:

[salguine]

76. Beacool, did you ever know that you're my hero?

[Beacool]

84. No, I didn't.

Thanks for the compliment!!

:pals:

[CakeGrrl]

106. Is it any wonder WHY?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3980623&mesg_id=3980678

:rofl:

Kindred spirits, I guess. At least you have the balls to be honest about your distaste.

[yourguide]

61. It's already been refuted...multiple times on this board and this thread

did you actually read the posts?

There is no counter argument, the visitors were disclosed or were at open events with the media there.

[Neecy]

77. exactly

Everyone's heads exploded here when Cheney wouldn't release details of who attended his energy policy meetings - but it's okay when a Democrat does it over something just as important. Even raising mild objections gets you called a freeper here and worse.

This is exactly like the Bush-worship we saw on the right. It was wrong and mindless then, it is now.

[Beacool]

51. This is for all of you attacking the messenger:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3980623

Why don't you go over there and berate that poster too.

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

55. You poor victim.

[Beacool]

56. Nope, I just find the attacks highly amusing and hypocritical.

:7

[Forkboy]

58. The irony.

[Beacool]

60. 'Night Forky.

Too tired and sleepy to argue with you.

:boring:

[tomm2thumbs]

86. it is ironic because the attacks floated your post to the top, giving it more attention

I wouldn't have read it except for the activity bumping it to the main page. It does look like the story was true at one time, and that a lawsuit forced a bit of a turnabout on the issue. I don't see the big deal to posting or correcting the issue after the post. It is the angry posts thrown time and time again towards the OP that is undermining their own endgame but keeping this story floating at the top. But they continue to hand you more readership by engaging repeatedly. Consider it how you will.

[Beacool]

87. Good point.

All publicity is good publicity in the end.

As long as they spell one's name correctly.........

:7

[tomm2thumbs]

93. BeuhKool?

Oops

[Beacool]

98. Wise guy............

:eyes:



:hi:

[kid a]

52. -1 for ignorance

[Beacool]

72. - 1 For blindness

:shrug:

[karynnj]

79. You are SOOO predictable

The fact is that Media matters already debunked this charge - and Obama did at his press conference yesterday. He spoke of those meetings even having been seen in media carried photos. he also said a list will be forthcoming.

Do you want to know who really did produce a healthcare plan behind closed doors with Ira Magaziner - not even including people like Ted Kennedy? Who refused to give names of who she met with until it became politically impossible to continue this policy? Hillary R. Clinton!

Go back to posting about Hillary Clinton, which you do positively, probably hating that doing so helps Obama as well as her. Here's today's NYT article - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/asia/24diplo.html Have fun, there is even a photo and she is wearing a light blue pantsuit.

[Beacool]

85. Condescend all you want, but the list was only released 50 m.

before his press conference.

Thanks for the Times article, though I had already seen it.

;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. So how long did it take you to release your apology?

[Beacool]

89. Apology for what?

It took a threat of litigation to finally get them to release said list.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. And you kept shoveling your shit after they released the list.

[DevonRex]

107. As always and then claiming innocence. I used to find it slightly amusing.

Now it's just old and smelly.

[karynnj]

91. If you KNEW it was released, why post the article without at least noting it

Not to mention, he is still far more open than HRC was.

[Prism]

94. People are not understanding this thread

The list was not released at the time this article was written and when Beacool posted the OP. The OP was posted around 1PM July 22nd.

The administration released the list at around 8PM July 22nd. (Which, by the way, good for them. Credit where due).

Any assertion made prior to 8PM last night that the administration had already released this stuff is a lie.

Caught in that lie, it seems the gears have shifted to simply attack the messenger. I guess everyone's hoping no one will notice the rather galling dishonesty of the more skilled propagandists around these parts.

[tomm2thumbs]

95. I agree with your posting of how the story played out

And it seems a lot of the folks who don't like what was said have no problem disagreeing in a way that violates the spirit and terms of DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

If Beacool was truly trying to make some statement, she'd review all those rules and report each post that violated them and, btw, I don't see her doing that so I imagine she isn't trying to do anything more than defend her right to speak about a topic, state her opinion on it, and allow others to respond with their views (pro or contrary)

[Beacool]

96. I have done nothing about it.

Ever since I joined this board I have never alerted on anybody, nor put anyone on ignore. I believe in freedom of expression, even for those who personally attack me. As opposed to referring to the merits, or lack there of, of my posts.

:-)

[Lord Helmet]

104. The op was so anxious to post something negative about Obama

they didn't check for duplicate threads in GDP already posted here and here.

The op posts two kinds of thread: Clown-colored pantsuit adoration threads and anything negative about Obama.

The sour grapes remain strong in that one.

[CakeGrrl]

105. Bingo. Hammer, meet head of nail.

That's all it comes down to.

[Beacool]

97. Exactly!!

Thank you.

;-)

[vaberella]

101. Since the Admin has been in office the news media has basically lived there.

Everyone has seen or heard of who's visited---there is no secrecy there, this is was why when the first hoopla over a stupid guest list thing surprised me. Unless people teleported into the WH it's been no surprise. It's like people want some sort of formal response which is lame. Any and every news article gives names of visitors for the big meetings and even just little old guests. The second ponit is that o has currently released the names on the White House website which he stated last night---since clarity seemed to be needed.

[Prism]

109. I applaud all efforts at transparency

Including the administration's release and clarification last night. CREW is right to ask, and the administration behaved honorably in responding.

It was a sound example of accountability being requested and provided for.

Pretty good exercise, imo.

[Autumn]

102. Oh they understand it

they just prefer to ignore that fact.

[karynnj]

103. Don't casually throw around the word "lie"

I would assume, that most people, did not look to see the time the op was posted.

[Prism]

108. It's not casual

Those who came in after the administration released the list can be forgiven for confusion and misunderstanding.

But those who made false assertions before the list was released . . . they knew what they were doing.

[vaberella]

100. Obama himself responded to these allegations and he said---they've been released. n/t

[Better Believe It]

110. Don't you follow the news at all? Allegations?

It took a lawsuit to pry that information out of the White House yesterday afternoon!

:) :)

Now you're just being silly .... right?

Source: AP

Obama on Wednesday night released the list of visits by health care executives after a government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, announced it planned to sue to try to get White House visitor logs. Only names and dates were released, not the visitors' titles or employers.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j904hBjTq0B-AklYcG2sbK0d76dQD99K0OI80