Some of these things are simply legacy decisions from the Bush area. It could take months for the Obama team's stamp to show up in individual cases like this.

It turns out their dealing with the meltdown of our entire economy, or so I've heard.

It will be small solace, but when the Republicans begin to clamor for stuff from inside the White House that the administration won't produce, I hope those folks will be reminded that this "stonewall" was built by the GOP. I believe it's the theory of the Unitary Executive.

I just hope that the Dems in Congress will recall this, and not cave in to Republican demands for transparency at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

"Not Change We Can Believe In?"

You come up with that on your own? That's brilliant, really.

WWDD?

What Would Dennis Do?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the hell this story is supposed to be about.

"The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

What the hell does that even mean? Has the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss since Obama took over, and, if so on what grounds? Did they file a motion for summary judgment and, if so, on what legal arguments? Have the merely refused to voluntarily withdraw their answer and admit all the allegations of the complaint the way the AP reporter thinks they should? Have they merely filed a reply to a response to a motion the Bushies filed?

Does the AP reporter even know what the hell all this fancy stuff that goes on in a courtroom and in the filings mean and has he even read the filings, or is he just reporting based on some inflammatory quotes from the other side? The fact that he has exactly one, count 'em one, frakking sentence about the case makes me suspect the latter.

For that matter, what exactly is the plaintiff actually asking for? What relief are they seeking? It's kind of important in that it might tell us what, exactly, the government is opposing as opposed to some pretty generalizations from a reporter who obviously doesn't know anything about what he's supposed to be covering.

The thing I hate about the MSM is that they write stories, little novels, based upon an agreed-upon CW narrative rather than actually telling us what's going on. What I am coming to really lose my cool with about the left of center blogosphere is that they're starting to do the exact same thing, just with their own special narratives.

This is another instance of backpedaling by Obama that is giving me a warning feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Bush conducted an offensive throughout his administration to gain power for the executive and now Obama holds that power. Just as human nature predicts, he isn't willing to part with it.

Notice also that, so far at least, we haven't heard much about domestic surveillance and what is truly happening on that front. The full scope of government snooping has never been made clear and I don't expect that to change.

Under Bush, citizens lost some fundamental freedoms and I'm afraid those freedoms are gone for good. Digital video cameras everywhere increasingly record all activity in public places and electronic communications are not private by any stretch and truly never were. Every dime we spend is or can be tracked.

This stuff is for everyone 24/7 and is true for your entire life and will probably become even more invasive over time. How does it feel to know you are being stalked electronically from birth to death? It's early days of this new administration but the pattern emerging varies from Bush only in that it is being administered with a spoon full of sugar.

I mean, the Justice department, according to the Propublica article, filed a motion on the 21st, Obama's first day in office, and the Non-Profit NSA "responded" on the following Friday, unless you actually read the linked document, which is dated as filed the day before Obama took office.

Can we at the VERY least get our dates right?

This is a correct criticism of the article:

Has the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss since Obama took over, and, if so on what grounds? Did they file a motion for summary judgment and, if so, on what legal arguments? Have the merely refused to voluntarily withdraw their answer and admit all the allegations of the complaint the way the AP reporter thinks they should? Have they merely filed a reply to a response to a motion the Bushies filed?

This is also an apt observation:

It looks like the [DOJ] filed the motion to dismiss the day after Obama's inauguration. That was the last action by the Obama administration in the case. (The new articles were spurred by the plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, which was filed this past Friday.)

The motion to dismiss had been in the works for weeks, if not months, before it was filed. I am confident it was submitted through the required review process by superiors to the trial attorneys--all under Bush. I imagine the decision to file on January 21 was the result of a deadline imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or by a decision to get it on file before a new Administration took over.

These facts must be stressed. A new President does not get sworn in and suddenly, like some Irish pooka, a new political appointee, flush with a comprehensive understanding of Department policies and procedures from days past, appears in a chair to guide the levers.

In the week building up to the inauguration, political appointees were going around, saying their goodbyes, and turning in their BlackBerries. Left standing wrere the civil servants and Acting Assistant this and Acting Section Chief that. None of whom are going to reverse course on litigation in a way that dictates a policy change. Not while the Attorney General's nomination languished in the Senate.

The ship of State is, in times of transition, run by ensigns and yeomen as the Captain is being Commissioned.

Perhaps in pure policy settings it is easier to reverse direction. But in litigation, it surely is not. Things waived cannot be unwaived, and I would rather have an Attorney General who wants to review what the implications are of things before he and those below him are permitted to willy-nilly go waiving a whole area of possible privilege for an entire branch of Government.

Remeber this rule, which usually doesn't vary: Reporters rarely understand legal proceedings and issues, and they almost always get it wrong. That is true of the AP in this case and, I am sad to say, it looks like TPM went rushing to the front page with a banner headline and story (and snarky lede line) without doing their homework.

If this:

Now the Obama Justice Department is seeking to have the suit dismissed, just as the Bush DOJ did.

refers to the January 21st motion, this is a crap article and should be retracted.

Generally "now" doesn't usually refer to last month.

TPM: Please clarify and don't just pass along shoddy factoids from the AP unverified.