Obama WH “cavalier” towards abuses of ethics safeguards?

posted at 9:30 am on June 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama came to power on a promise to change the way Washington worked and to make his White House “the most transparent ever.”  The Daily Caller reports today that instead of adhering to new standards of ethical behavior, the Obama White House has trouble even measuring up to the old standards.  Their technology office has demanded arguably-illegal discounts from vendors, for example:

Two sources say a top White House technology official, Chief Information Officer Brook Colangelo, routinely asked technology vendors for special deals based on his position as a public official.

“I heard the CIO talking to various technology vendors, saying … like, ‘You should give this to us for free because we’re the White House.’ And he actually said that to people,” one source said. A second source said Colangelo continued the practice even after having been confronted about its appropriateness.

Asking for discounts as a White House political official violates ethical rules and potentially federal law, experts say.

“You’re asking me a hypothetical because I’m not endorsing any facts here,” said Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, but “I can’t imagine a circumstance where a public official based on the fact that the person is a public official who asks a commercial business for a discount, I can’t imagine how that’s ethical under ethical rules in the White House that I know of, and it might even be worse.”

Remember how Obama pledged to keep lobbyists out of the administration?  That promise got broken in the first days of his administration, with dozens of “waivers” of the no-lobbyist rule flying around the White House.  However, Obama sternly insisted that any former lobbyists would have an impermeable firewall keeping them from engaging with their former employers for their benefit.  That impermeable firewall must be past its expiration date:

For instance, e-mails recently released by the White House show Andrew McLaughlin — a former Google lobbyist and now deputy chief technology official for the administration — e-mailing his former employer from his personal gmail account on policy matters.

On one occasion, a lobbyist for Google asked McLaughlin and Susan Crawford, then a telecommunications advisor in the National Economic Council, for a meeting on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Internet privacy policy. McLaughlin and Crawford worked with Becky Burr, the lobbyist, to set up a meeting time.

The FTC is an independent agency supposedly immune from White House meddling. While it’s unknown what was said at the meeting, Burr’s request for the meeting noted the “worrisome implications” of stricter privacy controls on innovation and said “it seems important for the FTC to have administration input on this.”

The issue is especially concerning to privacy activists like Consumer Watchdog who fault Google for its privacy policies.

In other instances, McLaughlin coordinated public relations strategy with Google employees.

It turns out that McLaughlin sent “numerous” e-mails from his personal account while at work for the White House.  He managed to bypass the White House firewall by using his cell phone to send the e-mails.  What did the Obama administration do when it discovered McLaughlin’s activities?  He received a “reprimand” for “inadvertently” bypassing the lobbying and e-mail restrictions.

Remember how Karl Rove’s personal e-mail account became a national news story?  Democrats howled that Rove was secretly plotting political strategies without any of the oversight required by law for people with White House positions.  Suddenly, bypassing the Records Act is the cool thing to do — and the Daily Caller reports that everyone is doing it now:

The source who worked in the White House for approximately the first six months of the administration said the use of personal iPhones, Blackberries and other smart phones is ubiquitous in the White House.

“A lot of the political staff have two Blackberries. One that’s issued by the government and then their other Blackberry. Which they’re using their personal Blackberry while they’re in the office to talk to other people, probably about official business,” the source said.

Are they using their iPhones for official business? “You would think so,” the source said. An “example would be somebody in the political staff texts their counterpart over at the [Democratic National Committee (DNC)] and says, ‘Hey what should we do about this?’ and the person at the DNC says, ‘Well, here’s what we’re doing.’ That’s, obviously, the worst case scenario where you’ve got the actual sort of political collusion which is strictly prohibited by the Hatch Act and then also the violation of the records act at the same time.

Opacity.  It’s the new transparency.  Or, in other words, beware of Chicago Machine pols bearing Hope and Change.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…

Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.

workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM

“…and it’s important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives…”

Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.

onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.

Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”

can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.

FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”

And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.

So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.

And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?

Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.

blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM

That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.

Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”

AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”

AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton

workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”

The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.

Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Weapons To Syria.

Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.

We were in Benghazi for the weapons.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM

“US” – Should be UN Security Council

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM

So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of terrorists militias and rebels.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM

OK let’s see

An idiot would say here, “I was an idiot”

A liar would say here … “I was an idiot”

In other words, these remarks are devoid of any information content

rightmind on May 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.

WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Correct answer is “Regime Changer without a plan to deal with 40 years of Quackadaffy weapons left behind.”

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Oops.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.

MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.

blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…

Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.

That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.

Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.

dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.

dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM

I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!

Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.

flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM

The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.

The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”

Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Let’s just ponder that a moment. We took our quick-response team offline on the anniversary of 9/11? Who made that call?

This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered

I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity

IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.

In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.

AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS

entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM

My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.

ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM

One theory has it that the whole thing was a charade to set up a prisoner exchange – Stevens for the Blind Sheik. It would explain:

1. Why there was reduced security.

2. Why the platoon on the way within Libya was told to stand down.

3. Why it was called a hostage situation.

The men who fought back apparently weren’t in on the plan. This enraged the attackers, who thought they’d been lured into a trap or betrayed. So they went and got more friends and made a second attack.

Akzed on May 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM


This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.

Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.

Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.

MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2