3 ms·
The article you link to says it was last week. This was the selective publication of White House visitor logs online. Those logs still need to be submitted to t
by shimon_e 10y ago
The article you link to says it was last week. This was the selective publication of White House visitor logs online. Those logs still need to be submitted to the national archive.
You can freely object to such changes. But the second people start spinning it into something much worse than what it is. I feel like they are playing politics and don't really care.
- efuquen 10y agoWhat exactly was the spin? The administration is literally killing the site open.gov, I don't see any bias with stating it exactly as it is: "White House officials said the Administration is ending the contract for Open.gov, the Obama-era site that hosted the visitor records along with staff financial disclosures, salaries, and appointments." As to your extra claim that visitor logs will be submitted to the national archive, do you have some reference to back that up? Regardless there are a number of ways that could make access more difficult. For example, you have to physically go to the national archive to look the records up, national archive of the logs aren't made available until much later after the visits occurred, etc. I'm really not familiar enough with it to know the implications, but I highly doubt multiple organizations would be suing over this if it wasn't an important difference: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328058-dhs-sued-for-not-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328058-dhs-sued-f...