-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jake Tapper slams Obama administration's poor transparency: Betrays 'certain disdain for the public'
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
I like Jake Tapper.
Notice that the new date for the release of this information was given as November 31, 2016! (2:00 in the video timeline.)
Notice that the new date for the release of this information was given as November 31, 2016! (2:00 in the video timeline.)
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I don't know if I quite get the whole "transparency" thing. To what degree should we really expect the government to be transparent? Folks have been complaining about her emails and sending/receiving classified information from a private server. Should the population be privy to that information or will it all be redacted?
Secretaries often do what the President want them to do because it's his policy direction. In that regard, she could have still expressed reservations about TPP and still did the job the President asked her to do. Why should or would we expect the FOIA to give us access to that type of information?
What's the purpose of classifying if we are privy to everything?
Should the Department of Defense be transparent about its activities? How about the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or Homeland Security?
The delicate nature of foreign affairs and the defense of a nation often demand a lack of transparency in order for us to be successful. It's a seemingly solid job of reporting by Jake. But I'm just not sure that Jake or the media are on the same page as the executive branch as to what they define as transparent.
Does it matter if she worked on the trade bill or not? I'd suspect she probably didn't in the manner that folks want to believe she did. She as the SOS was essentially the President's salesman for what he wants to push as a solution to other nations.
She could have been fully against TPP and still defined it as the Gold Standard and pushed it because that was her job.
I don't think they are gonna get anything on November 21st about her "involvement" that would have been any different on November 3rd, IMO.
Secretaries often do what the President want them to do because it's his policy direction. In that regard, she could have still expressed reservations about TPP and still did the job the President asked her to do. Why should or would we expect the FOIA to give us access to that type of information?
What's the purpose of classifying if we are privy to everything?
Should the Department of Defense be transparent about its activities? How about the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or Homeland Security?
The delicate nature of foreign affairs and the defense of a nation often demand a lack of transparency in order for us to be successful. It's a seemingly solid job of reporting by Jake. But I'm just not sure that Jake or the media are on the same page as the executive branch as to what they define as transparent.
Does it matter if she worked on the trade bill or not? I'd suspect she probably didn't in the manner that folks want to believe she did. She as the SOS was essentially the President's salesman for what he wants to push as a solution to other nations.
She could have been fully against TPP and still defined it as the Gold Standard and pushed it because that was her job.
I don't think they are gonna get anything on November 21st about her "involvement" that would have been any different on November 3rd, IMO.
Your questions are moot. The material being sought under the FOIA is supposed to be available, it's the law. It's just that Obama is blocking its release until after the election.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I guess my question is what details and to what degree should be available? The decision making process? Meetings from minutes with her and the President? With her and the leaders of the nations involved?Private side meetings?
What? Her emails again? Other correspondence between her and the President or other leaders?
Does the FOIA say what types of information and what shouldn't be included? Because somebody obviously goes through the process of redacting a lot of the noted information.
What? Her emails again? Other correspondence between her and the President or other leaders?
Does the FOIA say what types of information and what shouldn't be included? Because somebody obviously goes through the process of redacting a lot of the noted information.