Justice drops proposed rule that would have allowed FOIA lies

posted at 1:55 pm on November 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

So much for institutionalized lying billed as “transparency”:

The Department of Justice has canceled a controversial planned revision to Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) rules that opponents said would have allowed federal agencies to lie about the existence of records.

In a letter to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley on Thursday, the DOJ wrote that the proposed rule “falls short” of its commitment to transparency, and it “will not include that provision when the Department issues final regulations.”

As part of larger revision of FOIA practices, the proposed rule would have allowed federal agencies to deny the existence of records when applying an exclusion, even if the records did exist.

As the PJ Tatler says, this is good news … presuming that they’re not lying about the not lying.

Even with this reversal, this episode should be kept in mind, especially when Obama inevitably claims to have run the most transparent administration in history.  The FOIA process forces government to be transparent and open, which is the reason Congress enacted it in the first place.  In an administration that has its fingers in Solyndra, Fast & Furious, and other scandals, we need the Department of Justice to be more forthcoming, not less — especially on its own Fast & Furious documents.  Enshrining the ability to lie into the rules is not what Americans expect out of a government that is expected to operate under the rule of law, rather than the rule of whim and because-I-said-so.

The only aspect of this proposal that was transparent was its absurdity.  The DoJ’s retreat now doesn’t make the previous two efforts to push it any less absurd.

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

Holder’s old mindset:
We are a nation of cowards for not talking about race 24/7.
Holder’s new mindset:
I am a coward.

itsnotaboutme on November 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Well, we all know the agencies are going to lie anyway, and DoJ will have their back.

Since they can’t do it legally, they’ll just do it illegally. And then deny everything. As if it never happened.

BTW, I notice an odd uptick in the number of paper shredders being purchased by DOJ and DOE.

BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM

The shredders have finished their work. Next on to Solyndra paperwork.

Kissmygrits on November 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Well this won’t stop bho and team from lying. They do a good job of stalling and ignoring court orders also.
L

letget on November 4, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Secret government files, denying the existence of records when we know they exist, shadow files.

Hmmm, that just ain’t right.

madmonkphotog on November 4, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Everything I’ve ever told you has been a lie.

Including that.

Mr. Bingley on November 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Obama: Holder lied to you, Tim. Everything Holder says is a lie. Remember that, Tim. *Everything* he says is a lie.

Holder: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Tim. I’m… lying.

Geithner: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie… illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!

BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Laughing stock to the world!

Schadenfreude on November 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Um… why should I trust this?

What would they have said if they were keeping the rule?

We’re planning on lying to you on a regular basis, I just wanted to be honest about that and get yelled at needlessly when our new policy says I could have lied and claimed the policy wasn’t going into effect

Either:
1) The policy isn’t going into effect.

2) They’re using the policy, that went into effect, to lie to claim the policy won’t go into effect. This is a Security concern as knowing they’d lie in the future would be problematic for keeping secrets; so lying about the policy itself would be necessary and justified under the policy.

Prove that what they’ve done isn’t #2, or even simply prove that their actions under situation #2 would look different from situation #1. For it to be effective it would have to look exactly the same, so they’d say the same thing.

Trust them if you want, after knowing they were working on a policy to lie to you… and their claim that they didn’t implement the policy. I can’t see a reason to trust someone who has stated their desire to lie to me.

gekkobear on November 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM

I can’t believe those people.

DamnCat on November 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM

“… presuming that they’re not lying about the not lying.”

The check is in the mail…

Seven Percent Solution on November 4, 2011 at 2:27 PM

gekkobear on November 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Yep.

BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 2:27 PM

“… presuming that they’re not lying about the not lying.”

I love you… (no homo)

Seven Percent Solution on November 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM

“… presuming that they’re not lying about the not lying.”

I promise not to…

Seven Percent Solution on November 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Okay, so lets put behind us this obvious attempt to distract conservatives from the real problems the demrats are facing. Solyndra, etc.

Stay on point folks…..pressure them until we get a “You’re d@mn right I ordered the Code Red!” statement from one of them.

csdeven on November 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Holder just has that look that makes you want to walk up to him and slap the taste out his mouth.

SirGawain on November 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Since when does a department get to write rules that voids a law?

pat on November 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I can’t believe those people.

DamnCat on November 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM

I can. Marxists believe that lying is a fine tactic to use.

Since when does a department get to write rules that voids a law?

pat on November 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Jan. 20, 2009.

rbj on November 4, 2011 at 2:48 PM

One has to wonder, given that they came up with this “proposal” in the first place.

GarandFan on November 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM

People should have been fired behind this.

petefrt on November 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I haven’t heard a

rat

speak about anything political without lying since Jimmy was fumbling about the Oval office. Why change now?

cyborg3k on November 4, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Holder: I can’t stand Mexicans.

Danny on November 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM

DOJ just wanted to make what they do make it legal. You can bet they would have used it retroactive on all the request they are sitting on.

Maybe they decided that the way they were doing it was the wrong way. They can just add it to the Jobs bill along with all the other socialist want-to-haves, or one of their favorites ways of doing things, add it to a bill that is being rushed through too fast to read whats in it.

Franklyn on November 4, 2011 at 3:58 PM

BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

ROFLMAO!!!

I don’t trust any of them. They’re going to enact this rule, but keep it on the down low. They will hold back, or destroy any records that make them look bad, or prove they should ALL be behind bars.

capejasmine on November 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Justice drops proposed rule that would have allowed FOIA lies

So, in other words, Obama’s lies are now officially “de facto,” not “de jure.”

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 4, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Are they lying now or were they lying then. Never mind they are always lying.

IowaWoman on November 4, 2011 at 5:47 PM

The Department of Justice has canceled a controversial planned revision to Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) rules that opponents said would have allowed federal agencies to lie about the existence of records.

Someone told them they’re already doing this…

Chuck on November 5, 2011 at 8:00 AM

Down is Up.

Left is Right.

Lies are Truth.

Welcome to hopenchange. You will be assimilated.

dissent555 on November 5, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Eric Holder – a smarmy, corrupt, lying, partisan, d*uchebag of a man – The Head of JUSTICE for the most powerful free country on the planet.

Honestly….how frightening is that?

Tim_CA on November 5, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Since when does a department get to write rules that voids a law?
pat on November 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Jan. 20, 2009.
rbj on November 4, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Oooh, ouch. Touche.

listens2glenn on November 6, 2011 at 9:50 AM