Ap Reporters Scandal

[heckofajobbrownie]

This one is more complicated than the other two, it seems to me. It may turn out that what the DOJ did was completely legal, and that they followed all the reporting steps in the law. What everyone seems to be stunned by, me included, is how broad the subpoena powers were. I don't think there's any precedent for it. This is a long way to go to find out who leaked information, and I'm not sure we want the government leaning on this press this hard.

 

The DOJ is sticking by what it did:

 

Holder said the leak being investigated was one of the most serious he has ever seen.

 

"It put the American people at risk, and that's not hyperbole," he said. "It put the American people at risk, and finding who was responsible for that required very aggressive action."

 

And Steve, knowing you, it would seem like you'd support what the DOJ did to found out who leaked the information to the press. I can't think of when you haven't supported the powers of the government over the freedom of the press.

 

So, does anyone in here think that the government should be able to find out who leaked classified information in this way? And remember, the FBI has reportedly interviewed around 500 people in this case to try and find out who leaked, including Eric Holder. That's how serious this leak was.

[Westside Steve]

and you would be correct sir. I don't think the freedom of the press should encompass treason. And treason is what I would call instances of leaking sensitive classified information for profit.now I realize you really think in terms other than black or white but don't you think there are levels of classified information that should be kept secret? and allow me to add my water mark, if this had been the Bush or Cheney or Romney administration I'd expect the discourse to take a different tone.

 

how about you bud? Are you siding with freedom of the press or national security?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

ironic that the right to complete privacy and the right to know everything about everybody else bump heads once in a while.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm sort of glad this is happening because this is a conversation we should have had years ago. And the only reason we're having it now is because the phone records they got were from the press corps, the people who get to ask the White House questions. Now it's a scandal, whereas they've been getting these records - and more - from everyday citizens for years with nothing but the occasional complaint from privacy/ACLU types.

 

I'm sort of waiting to see what comes of it, what else we learn. It seems pretty clear that they really didn't want this information out there, and I don't doubt that they had good reasons to want it kept secret. There were likely lives at stake - intelligence agents and assets and the like. These are the harsh realities of governing that most people don't understand. You want a tight ship.

 

However, this is one of those cases where it's not what's illegal that's the scandal, it's what's legal. The scope of what they asked for and were able to get is really disconcerting. They're basically saying that if someone leaks information we get to access everyone in your organization's phone and text records. That's really problematic. And you're going to find a lot of hypocrisy here, especially since the loudest voices in this scandal are going to be the same people who voted to give the government these powers. Which is why I think while this is the most important of the three scandals (the IRS involves people you can just fire, Benghazi is mostly political) this is the one that will receive the least amount of attention. The press will run with it hard because it involves them, but I think the IRS scandal will resonate the most with the public. That's an organization most people hate coming after people for what they believe. It's an easy narrative.

 

So yes, I'm likely to side on freedom of the press here. However, I'd prefer to side with freedom of the press when they're investigating wrongdoing, not reporting on the intelligence details from a terror operation, you know?

 

But leaks are often important. A lot of the stuff we know about government wrongdoing comes from people leaking information. Every White House has this problem, trying to find this balance. Nobody wants leaks, but everyone in that town leaks like a sieve. It's how you trade favors. It's how you get your side of the story out there. (Who just leaked the Benghazi emails that screwed Stephen Hayes and Jonathan Karl? A GOP staffer.) I've even been involved with some of this stuff myself. Not national security stuff, but you have info you want to get out there that the public doesn't know, and you get a journalist buddy on the horn who you think can either run with it or trade it to someone else and owe you.

 

The thing is, the law says that before the DOJ takes this step - getting the phone records - they have to pretty much take every other step they can to try and find out who leaked this. They're going to have to show that they followed the law here. My guess is that they probably did, since we know that they followed some of other aspects of the law to the T - the reporting requirements and the like. The AP knew this was happening because the DOJ had to tell them this was happening. That's in the law.

 

So, wait and see, I guess. But it's way past what I'd like to see the government doing, even to investigate a serious leak.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And just for shits and giggles, here's someone who wasn't very happy with the press either.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, this is what I'm talking about. You're going to see a lot of these stories that put members in a bit of a box. From 2010:

 

 

Sen. John McCain ripped the White House again Sunday over national security leaks, putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of President Obama.

“I have no idea whether the president knew,” Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican, said early Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The president may not have done it himself, but the president is certainly responsible as the commander in chief.”

Mr. McCain, who lost the 2008 presidential election to Mr. Obama, has been the leading critic of the White House over the national security leaks, which he and other congressional leaders blame on the administration.

Mr. Obama on Friday said that accusation was “offensive.”

“The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive,” Mr. Obama said during a White House news conference. “It’s wrong.”

Mr. McCain threw that charge back at the White House on Sunday.

“It’s ‘offensive’ what has happened,” he said, and he again rejected the idea that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should be in charge of an investigation into the leaks.

Mr. McCain said Congress wants to see an outside investigator look into the leaks because the Obama-appointed Mr. Holder has “no credibility.”

The controversy over the security breaches began last week with the publication in the New York Times of a story that included detailed information about covert U.S. cyberattacks on Iranian computers.

The Arizona senator and other leading Republicans have accused administration officials of trying to bolster Mr. Obama’s foreign policy credentials ahead of the November election.

[calfoxwc]

It's political. The AP couldn't be controlled to only report what

 

the Obamao regime wanted them too.

 

I suppose this guy was guilty of "something" concerning Homeland Security.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/story-of-anchor-who-claimed-irs-intimidation-has-taken-a-weird-twist/

[heckofajobbrownie]

The more information we're getting here, the more I'm convinced this isn't a scandal either. It looks like what they did was perfectly legal, if somewhat unprecedented.

 

The fact that many people don't like that it happened is a different thing than a scandal. That's a policy dispute. And I'd be glad to change the policy.

[Westside Steve]

guess it depends on who's ox is presently being gored.

 

but yes reporters do get pissy when somebody looks under their skirts.

 

especially in this case after all that water they've carried...

 

 

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Heck, I have a feeling no matter what if it concerned Obama, you wouldn't consider it a scandal.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The IRS thing is a mini-scandal and I said so. I don't see the evidence for the other two. Sorry to not agree with you. But not really.

 

Call me back when they do something like, you know, greenlight torture or blow the identity of a CIA agent. Something that's an actual crime.

 

And I'd ask you guys then: if it turns out the DOJ followed the letter of the law, and it seems they did, then what is the scandal? That the law allows them to do this? I'd be inclined to agree. But that's not a scandal. That's they went further with the law than others had before? I'd be inclined to agree there too, but that's also not a scandal.

 

So what's the scandal? Are you guys just waking up to the idea that we've given our government lots of power to look into private communications?

 

Really, while you're accusing me of being overly-partisan, you haven't offered any reasons why you think this is a scandal other than "Well, it's Obama, so it must be one!" Which is overly-partisan.

 

So ...who wants to go first? Bring your usual weak-ass shit to me.

 

Steve doesn't think it's a scandal. He's all for it. What about the rest of you?

[Westside Steve]

and unless holder is lying, which wouldn't surprise me, the classified information in question is some pretty strong stuff. So he says. That of course would mean that the press is leaking stuff that will get Americans killed.

 

that is, of course, unless I misunderstood his statement that it was serious material.

 

it could possibly be a scandal if that's not true.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, and since we know which case Holder is referring to, which involved blowing up a plane on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death and trying to roll up everyone involved after we got the bomb, I guess you can come to the conclusion that Holder isn't lying about it being "serious." We know it was serious. That's not the question.

 

So that makes me and Steve who don't think there's a scandal here. Anyone else?

[Stewy]

The IRS thing is a mini-scandal and I said so. I don't see the evidence for the other two. Sorry to not agree with you. But not really.

 

Call me back when they do something like, you know, greenlight torture or blow the identity of a CIA agent. Something that's an actual crime.

 

And I'd ask you guys then: if it turns out the DOJ followed the letter of the law, and it seems they did, then what is the scandal? That the law allows them to do this? I'd be inclined to agree. But that's not a scandal. That's they went further with the law than others had before? I'd be inclined to agree there too, but that's also not a scandal.

 

So what's the scandal? Are you guys just waking up to the idea that we've given our government lots of power to look into private communications?

 

Really, while you're accusing me of being overly-partisan, you haven't offered any reasons why you think this is a scandal other than "Well, it's Obama, so it must be one!" Which is overly-partisan.

 

So ...who wants to go first? Bring your usual weak-ass shit to me.

 

Steve doesn't think it's a scandal. He's all for it. What about the rest of you?

 

What a bunch of dummies...Its a scandal period.

 

A scandal can be either illegal, which would make it a crime, or immoral which is not neccessarily criminal.

People also think that to be a scandal, it must be covert. It does not.

 

 

/ˈskandl/

Noun

1. An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage: "a bribery scandal".
2. The outrage or anger caused by such an action or event.

[Westside Steve]

Okay, and since we know which case Holder is referring to, which involved blowing up a plane on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death and trying to roll up everyone involved after we got the bomb, I guess you can come to the conclusion that Holder isn't lying about it being "serious." We know it was serious. That's not the question.

 

So that makes me and Steve who don't think there's a scandal here. Anyone else?

Heck, I'm wondering if we are really on the same page. I don't mind if we are but just to be clear:

I have no idea if these wiretaps are authorized.

There might be a warrant or maybe a grand jury subpoena or possibly it was done under the terrorism part of the Patriot Act.

 

Still I think my point was pretty clear and that is that I believe national security trumps the freedom of the press to report anything they want. Actually that I believe that it should.

That really doesn't have anything to do with the legality of it just what I think is right.

Is that your take as well?

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

This shows just how out of touch Obama is. He is either clueless as a President, or is trying to cover his ass.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Heck, I'm wondering if we are really on the same page. I don't mind if we are but just to be clear:

I have no idea if these wiretaps are authorized.

There might be a warrant or maybe a grand jury subpoena or possibly it was done under the terrorism part of the Patriot Act.

 

Still I think my point was pretty clear and that is that I believe national security trumps the freedom of the press to report anything they want. Actually that I believe that it should.

That really doesn't have anything to do with the legality of it just what I think is right.

Is that your take as well?

WSS

 

First of all, they're not wiretaps. Let's get that straight. They're records of phone calls - who called who and when and for how long, etc. And after the fact. This was not wiretapping the phone lines of reporters and listening to their conversations.

 

And no, we're not coming at this the same way. I think your view of the Constitution is more than a little bit perverted, to the extent that you have any respect for it at all. Nor have shown any sort of appreciation for what makes some of those principles so important. Plus, I think your view of government power is a little frightening. Your version of the country is not the country I want to live in. What you describe always sounds like Burma.

 

And yet I would guess that most Americans share your view of this case, which is that reporters can't hide behind the 1st Amendment when they're fucking with national security issues. But it's less of a principled stand than just the fact that no one likes the press.

 

My take is that unless there's something against the law here, and the DOJ was only taking advantage of the laws passed by both Republicans and Democrats, then the questions are of policy, not scandal. And I think it's an important policy discussion. But it's not a scandal. So unless they can show where the DOJ went afoul of the law - and I'm open to the possibility - then it's not a scandal.

 

Nor would I ever frame this as "national security versus the freedom of the press to report anything they want." That's never the question, and it's not the question here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

July of 2012:

 

 

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to President Barack Obama requesting that seven senior Administration officials be made available for interviews with the Committee about recent national security leaks.

Chairman Smith requested that the individuals be prepared to discuss, to the fullest extent of their knowledge, how, why and by whom recent classified matters were leaked or otherwise became public. Among the examples of national security leaks, Smith cited recent reporting on the President’s so-called “secret kill list” and stories about U.S. involvement in cyber operations against Iran including the Stuxnet and Flame viruses.

Chairman Smith: “The recent disclosure of national secrets is of great concern to all Americans. When national security secrets leak and become public knowledge, our people and our national interests are jeopardized. And when our enemies know our secrets, American lives are threatened.

“The safety of Americans at home and abroad depends on the government’s ability to protect our nation’s secrets. And the government’s ability to keep national security secrets depends on identifying the causes of the recent leaks and putting a stop to them.”

[Westside Steve]

yes I'd say most Americans most normal people would agree with me. But then if there are no laws covering this, what do you want to call it, surveillance then what are we talking about?

and if there are laws and they were bent then there's your scandal.

pretty simple actually, there were or there weren't.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Jimmy Carter wasn't this fucked up.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So the answer, once again, is that you bitches have absolutely nothing here. Nothing. You haven't been able to mention a single point in your favor. Not one. You just go with the herd, your team, and proclaim it a scandal.

 

Because you're all free thinkers, completely unmoored from politics.

 

God bless you all.

[Westside Steve]

Pal are you drinking?

or are you mad at someone else?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Just waiting for you guys to make a point other than "Obama bad."

 

And you can't.

[Westside Steve]

Me?

 

I didn't even make that point did I?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not referring to you.

[Westside Steve]

OK then....

WSS

[Westside Steve]

so did anything illegal happen or not? That's the only question that matters. Didn't I just hear the president talking about the need to keep things close because of national security?

but seriously I think you guys on the Left have made this more of a problem then it might have been when you threw a fit about going through library recordslooking to see who may have taken out books about bomb making and so forth a few years ago.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Holder and co are recusing themselves right and left. A former Justice official in charge said he'd

 

have reigned it in.. So, why did they overstep the whole thing?

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/more-mystery-over-ap-subpoenas-process-at-justice-164202.html

[Stewy]

So the answer, once again, is that you bitches have absolutely nothing here. Nothing. You haven't been able to mention a single point in your favor. Not one. You just go with the herd, your team, and proclaim it a scandal.

 

Because you're all free thinkers, completely unmoored from politics.

 

God bless you all.

 

 

 

Umm...just to make it clear, it is a scandal whether Obama had anything to do with it directly or not.

 

That being said, Obama knew very well this kind of behavior regarding the IRS goes on. It occurred under Clinton...These presidents gave no specific orders, but rather play dumb and let the pro Democratic IRS "do what they have to do."

 

Obama is now playing the role of Sgt. Shultz.....

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

so did anything illegal happen or not? That's the only question that matters. Didn't I just hear the president talking about the need to keep things close because of national security?

but seriously I think you guys on the Left have made this more of a problem then it might have been when you threw a fit about going through library recordslooking to see who may have taken out books about bomb making and so forth a few years ago.

WSS

 

Ha. Always the left's fault. No matter what.

 

Apart from the legality, it's obviously still an issue. It's just not a scandal without illegality.