Jump to content

Why won't Trump make White House visitor logs available?


westend1

Recommended Posts

This is the hidden content, please

Obama administration was sued to release the visitor logs...I don't recall all those up in the air about Trump's visitor logs complaining about Obama's back then. :)

Personally, I couldn't care less about either, but some only care about one it seems.

From the article:

The announcement follows a legal settlement with the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which had sued the administration for release of visitor logs, the group announced on its Web site.

Since taking office, the president has been criticized for refusing to release some of the logs, including those relating to health care and coal company executives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

Obama administration was sued to release the visitor logs...I don't recall all those up in the air about Trump's visitor logs complaining about Obama's back then. :)

Personally, I couldn't care less about either, but some only care about one it seems.

From the article:

The announcement follows a legal settlement with the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which had sued the administration for release of visitor logs, the group announced on its Web site.

Since taking office, the president has been criticized for refusing to release some of the logs, including those relating to health care and coal company executives.

No way, I wonder why WestEnd1 didn't make a thread about this. I could give you one or two reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, westend1 said:

Really?  School records?   Let me ask.  What conspiracy theory makes them in any way relevant?

I'm just going to have to reiterate your question...what did Obama have to hide? After all, you did imply that Trump might be trying to hide something by not releasing the White House visitor records. In that same token, what did Obama have to hide by sealing his school records? Did Obama actually get a special rate or special acceptance for claiming to be a foreign student? Did Obama's grades not confirm that he was the scholar the media made him out to be? Did Obama have some secret ties to Communist professors? Did Obama have any class reports that don't conform to American values? These questions seem to be as relevant as questioning the White House visitor logs. And when you say "your grasping for straws"...my response will be "ditto".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I'm just going to have to reiterate your question...what did Obama have to hide? After all, you did imply that Trump might be trying to hide something by not releasing the White House visitor records. In that same token, what did Obama have to hide by sealing his school records? Did Obama actually get a special rate or special acceptance for claiming to be a foreign student? Did Obama's grades not confirm that he was the scholar the media made him out to be? Did Obama have some secret ties to Communist professors? Did Obama have any class reports that don't conform to American values? These questions seem to be as relevant as questioning the White House visitor logs. And when you say "your grasping for straws"...my response will be "ditto".

Lol. Law review.  I am sure he did pretty well.  Ask anybody with any sense about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Lol. Law review.  I am sure he did pretty well.  Ask anybody with any sense about that

I would rather see his grades for myself...which I can't. So answer your own question...what does Obama have to hide?

And who are these people "with any sense about that"? Are they the mainstream media that fawned over Obama for 8 years? The same ones that refused to write anything negative about him? Are these the ones you are suggesting I ask for an opinion? Now that deserves the obligatory LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...