HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The AP's being investigat...

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:44 PM

 

The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak.

There's a reason the AP is squalling like a cat on a hot tin roof over these subpoenas.

It's because the 'letter' they got from the government informing them of these subpoenas probably came from the grand jury investigating the Yemen leak. Note--The AP has not released this 'letter.'

Now, ask yourselves something. The AP writes a letter denouncing the subpoenas. But they don't release the 'letter' from the government.

The subpoenas, according to the AP, covered the "more than 20 lines associated with the agency. Among those were phones in the Associated Press offices, personal lines for reporters, and the AP's phone in the House of Representatives press gallery." Link

Now, why would a major news organization not release a 'letter' from the government? Because it isn't a 'letter.' It's from the grand jury, and I believe is covered under the DC circuit's secrecy rules--you can't publish a subpoena or summons to the grand jury, but you can describe it. And I don't think it's just about the subpoenas. I think some reporters got called to the grand jury.

So the investigation of who leaked info about a CIA operative on the ground (who had to move his family to safety) has moved to a grand jury.

What if the leak came from Congress? What if it was coordinated by a member of Congress, or their staff? That might explain why the AP phone records from the House of Reps gallery were subpoenaed.

It might explain why Republicans are suddenly quite quiet on 'investigating' the AP scandal. It also might explain why Senator Leahy called for an investigation, ('cause if I were a Democratic Senator, I might want that investigation, too..) and it might explain why Eric Holder had to recuse himself, since he might know the targets.

I want the AP to release the letter they got. Maybe some investigative journalist on this board might ask the AP for me?

I know this much--if a grand jury is involved, and a news organization isn't releasing certain info, then I'm gonna start asking more questions before I start bashing this administration. I might remember Ms. Judith Miller, and Scooter Libby. And I might wonder who in the House of Reps might have wanted to leak this info, and then blame the President for leaking the info--right before an election?

On edit--who would want to make President Obama look weak on foreign intelligence, right before the election, accusing him of leaking it for his own political gain--


The Times also reports that there is some anger within the intelligence community that both the plot and the use of an informant were revealed by the media. The first report on the failed mission came from the Associated Press, which was asked not to report on the story by the CIA. They did hold it for several days while the agent — who media reports call a "double agent," though there is no indication he was ever a true member of al-Qaeda — and his family were moved to a safe location within Saudi Arabia. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said there were concerns that leaks would discourage foreign intelligence services and other possible informants from working with the United States in the future, if the methods and sources for such operations were disclosed publicly.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/05/latest-underwear-bomber-was-actually-cia-spy/52080/



Anybody remember how in the Spring of last year, Romney was trying to up his foreign policy creds? It wasn't just the Olympics....he needed to make the President look weak in co-operation with the people who were in on this mission--the UK, and Saudi Arabia.

170 replies, 23863 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 170 replies Author Time Post
Reply The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak. (Original post)
msanthrope May 2013 OP
Ikonoklast May 2013 #1
JustAnotherGen May 2013 #3
still_one May 2013 #56
msanthrope May 2013 #62
msanthrope May 2013 #4
Ikonoklast May 2013 #7
msanthrope May 2013 #19
Ikonoklast May 2013 #20
msanthrope May 2013 #24
Ikonoklast May 2013 #29
Voice for Peace May 2013 #46
Cha May 2013 #99
Voice for Peace May 2013 #43
bushisanidiot May 2013 #38
Berlum May 2013 #112
efhmc May 2013 #113
harun May 2013 #123
freshwest May 2013 #128
JustAnotherGen May 2013 #2
msanthrope May 2013 #6
Ikonoklast May 2013 #9
JustAnotherGen May 2013 #13
truedelphi May 2013 #131
msanthrope May 2013 #133
ProSense May 2013 #5
DevonRex May 2013 #8
msanthrope May 2013 #11
DevonRex May 2013 #32
msanthrope May 2013 #33
DevonRex May 2013 #39
MjolnirTime May 2013 #84
DevonRex May 2013 #87
SidDithers May 2013 #10
one_voice May 2013 #12
JustAnotherGen May 2013 #15
one_voice May 2013 #21
chillfactor May 2013 #14
randome May 2013 #26
Anansi1171 May 2013 #65
Cha May 2013 #100
davidpdx May 2013 #102
LanternWaste May 2013 #16
davidpdx May 2013 #103
MineralMan May 2013 #17
msanthrope May 2013 #22
MineralMan May 2013 #23
msanthrope May 2013 #27
MineralMan May 2013 #31
leveymg May 2013 #36
msanthrope May 2013 #45
hedda_foil May 2013 #95
winter is coming May 2013 #109
randome May 2013 #52
leveymg May 2013 #64
msanthrope May 2013 #75
City Lights May 2013 #18
ProSense May 2013 #25
msanthrope May 2013 #30
randome May 2013 #28
msanthrope May 2013 #35
randome May 2013 #34
msanthrope May 2013 #40
randome May 2013 #44
CaliGal May 2013 #151
msanthrope May 2013 #160
OKNancy May 2013 #37
Dawson Leery May 2013 #41
Whisp May 2013 #42
Voice for Peace May 2013 #49
msanthrope May 2013 #54
railsback May 2013 #47
msanthrope May 2013 #50
Voice for Peace May 2013 #48
winter is coming May 2013 #51
msanthrope May 2013 #53
Ikonoklast May 2013 #60
Number23 May 2013 #70
Liberal In Texas May 2013 #156
emulatorloo May 2013 #55
Anansi1171 May 2013 #57
Quixote1818 May 2013 #58
msanthrope May 2013 #61
hopemountain May 2013 #59
leveymg May 2013 #63
msanthrope May 2013 #66
leveymg May 2013 #67
msanthrope May 2013 #73
leveymg May 2013 #83
msanthrope May 2013 #90
leveymg May 2013 #106
msanthrope May 2013 #110
leveymg May 2013 #126
msanthrope May 2013 #134
leveymg May 2013 #140
msanthrope May 2013 #143
leveymg May 2013 #144
msanthrope May 2013 #146
leveymg May 2013 #149
msanthrope May 2013 #150
randome May 2013 #153
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #68
msanthrope May 2013 #74
Number23 May 2013 #72
randome May 2013 #78
Number23 May 2013 #86
Number23 May 2013 #69
SidDithers May 2013 #77
SunSeeker May 2013 #89
malaise May 2013 #71
mainer May 2013 #76
graham4anything May 2013 #79
ProSense May 2013 #80
cvoogt May 2013 #81
msanthrope May 2013 #82
DevonRex May 2013 #85
cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #88
msanthrope May 2013 #91
cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #92
msanthrope May 2013 #94
cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #115
Rex May 2013 #93
blackspade May 2013 #96
Half-Century Man May 2013 #97
Yo_Mama May 2013 #98
msanthrope May 2013 #105
morningfog May 2013 #107
msanthrope May 2013 #111
morningfog May 2013 #120
msanthrope May 2013 #135
randome May 2013 #116
Cha May 2013 #101
Ilsa May 2013 #104
Rex May 2013 #119
Ilsa May 2013 #166
Laelth May 2013 #108
spanone May 2013 #114
michigandem58 May 2013 #117
msanthrope May 2013 #147
pmorlan1 May 2013 #118
msanthrope May 2013 #137
pmorlan1 May 2013 #145
msanthrope May 2013 #165
cynzke May 2013 #121
truedelphi May 2013 #132
Gothmog May 2013 #122
pmorlan1 May 2013 #124
randome May 2013 #125
pmorlan1 May 2013 #127
randome May 2013 #129
truedelphi May 2013 #130
LiberalAndProud May 2013 #168
truedelphi May 2013 #170
GoCubsGo May 2013 #136
msanthrope May 2013 #139
GoCubsGo May 2013 #141
tavalon May 2013 #138
msanthrope May 2013 #142
tavalon May 2013 #154
msanthrope May 2013 #159
tavalon May 2013 #161
msanthrope May 2013 #162
tavalon May 2013 #163
msanthrope May 2013 #164
Skidmore May 2013 #148
randome May 2013 #152
msanthrope May 2013 #169
patrice May 2013 #155
patrice May 2013 #157
annabanana May 2013 #158
spanone May 2013 #167

Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:49 PM

1. This is going to circle right back to a Republican leaking classified information, yet once again.

Putting the lives of intelligence assets in the field at risk is what Republicans do best.


The AP screwed themselves on this one, you wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:51 PM

3. That's what I'm thinking

Classified information that put an embedded agent at risk.

Shame on the Republican that did that. Trying to sink this administration went a wee bit too far this time. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #3)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:22 PM

56. If that is true someone should go to jail this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #56)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:43 PM

62. Someone should go to jail for leaking a covert op. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:54 PM

4. The House of Reps AP phone wasn't subpoenaed for nothing...and why won't they release the 'letter?'

 

I would ask that. If I were an investigative journalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:00 PM

7. I am starting to wonder when the Republicans in Congress will start screaming in unison

"We can't let that information out, it's a breach of National Security!" in hopes of burying it.

There is something really smelly here, and it smells just like Elephant Shit.



And Mr. Obama is letting them start to twist, oh so slowly, in the wind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #7)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:15 PM

19. Here's something interesting--it wasn't done by National Security Letter....

 

because if it was, the AP would not know about it.

According to Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl, the most likely mechanism for Justice acquiring the information was a grand jury subpoena. (The Huffington Post's Ryan Reilly pointed to the form that Justice's attorney would have had to complete for a "Media Subpoena Request." While the process is more involved for media organizations than for other witnesses in criminal cases — for example, the Attorney General must personally approve it — Opsahl told us that he considered it the most likely route. If the government had employed a more exotic form of request, such as a national security letter, it's likely the AP still wouldn't know that data had been collected. In the case of a grand jury subpoena, the government must notify the party that it has collected the information.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/justice-department-ap-phone-records/65184/


I wonder who is going to get called by the grand jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:18 PM

20. I believe that was on purpose.

That way it can't be swept under the rug, they deliberately left out any possible way that it could only be heard or brought out in a closed setting.

AP and whoever they were in contact with are uckfayed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #20)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:29 PM

24. No Patriot Act or NDAA--plain old DC grand jury....and here's the thing on the letter

 

that I want to see--

The code section under which the grand jury is proceeding. Because if this was a leak of disclosure made to the Gang of Eight....this is going to be very bloody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:34 PM

29. Yep. I'm willing bet there are some Republican undies getting fudged right about now.

This is *not* going to be swept under any rug, it will be heard in open court.

Names will be named, for good or ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #29)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:04 PM

46. ahhhhhh dreaming of perp walks

 



CYA!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #20)

Thu May 16, 2013, 04:19 AM

99. I hope so..

chickenshits coming home to roost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:01 PM

43. I haven't been paying close attention & appreciate your OP here.

 

Thanks.

Issuing subpoenas (subpoenae?) is a whole lot different than
"secretly obtaining" which is the misleading way the msm
has been presenting this.

Wouldn't you think the Republicans, who have loved the Patriot
Act so dearly, would be cheering for investigating the free press?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:49 PM

38. Yep. And the MSM will suddenly decide this story isn't "news worthy". n/t

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:09 AM

112. + 1

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:10 AM

113. But will anyone be paying attention by then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:48 PM

123. That's where this is heading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #1)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:02 PM

128. I think you got it - all with due process - AP's cred will go down with the pubbies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:50 PM

2. I would love that

I want the AP to release the letter they got. Maybe some investigative journalist on this board might ask the AP for me?


But did a little digging - one in particular on this board is a fraud. Some kind of hack blogger but not exactly getting paycheck for their "work". I.E. Not legit. And has spoken out of 'school' before if you catch my drift.

Anyways - I said earlier today - the Press needs to help us. They could start right now with that letter.

And I asked that question/made that requestion knowing full and well it was 20 lines INCLUDING the one in the H.O.R. Press Gallery.

BTW - I work for one of the Evil Empires (major wireless carrier) and I do OFAC list, serve as a liason to federal security matters, etc. etc. 20 lines in joke.

20 lines is not a witch hunt. 20 lines is trying to find who put an agent embedded with the enemy at risk.

BTW - I have her on ignore - so I won't be able to see anything she responds to on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

6. Well, if I was an investigative journalist, I might ask why a major news organization

 

isn't releasing a letter from the government.

20 lines means they know who it is. I have no doubt there are AP reporters who will be appearing in front of this grand jury, and the AP is pissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:02 PM

9. It will show just how far in the tank the AP is for them, sucking up to Republicans

Watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:11 PM

13. Same here

If that was my job (investigative journalist) - I would definitely ask that question.


And 20 lines is VERY targeted and narrowed down. I would bet they have the Republican Operative's details and just needed to make a simple match . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:20 PM

131. If the "letter" is actually a subpoena involving a Grand Jury

It might be against the rules pertaining to Grand Juries.

So it is a legal issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #131)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:25 PM

133. Yes--on the rest of thread there is a bit of a debate about that. I would like it answered, and

 

I think it's a great question to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 03:54 PM

5. Yeah,

"What if..."

Oh, this is good: House Republican 2012 hearing demanding DOJ subpoena reporters (video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022847992

I have a weird suspicion about the IRS too, specifically related to the timing.

IRS Chief Didn’t Tell Congress About Tea Party Targeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841260

Republican Threatens To Block Funding For IRS Agents To Implement Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841795


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:01 PM

8. And there you have it.

It's time for people to fasten their seat belts. This will be a wild ride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #8)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:07 PM

11. You know, we have investigative journalists on this board. I want some answers. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:36 PM

32. Hahaha!!!!

Well, just look at you, with your infantile perfect grammar and spelling! Best leave the investigating to the professionals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #32)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:38 PM

33. I have a confession--dyslexia forces me to use the spell check. When I don't,

 

it's pretty funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #33)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:50 PM

39. I have a confession...

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Reading my cousin's emails is one of my life's guilty pleasures. He's dyslexic and is too impatient to use spell check most of the time. So am I, for that matter - too impatient to use spell check, I mean, and he knows it. Anyway, hilarity has ensued. We get a kick out of each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #8)

Wed May 15, 2013, 10:22 PM

84. this whole three-pronged fusillade of bullshit against Obama

 

is nothing more than a coordinated GOP effort to get out in front of this true scandal (leaking classified info) with "scandals" of their own.

muddying the waters.

won't work this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #84)

Wed May 15, 2013, 10:58 PM

87. That's right.

Exactly right. And there are Republicans involved in all 3 of the "scandals" too. Romney with Benghazi, at least one congressman in the AP story, a Republican CIA leaker to AP and a Republican appointee at the head of the IRS when that happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:03 PM

10. DU Rec...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:10 PM

12. Oh, this is getting good...

I think we'll hear some squealing 'round these parts as well.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #12)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:11 PM

15. Shove over

And share that popcorn. . . I'll bring some Toffifay and wine - okey dokey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #15)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:22 PM

21. Yep...

works for me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:11 PM

14. excellent analysis...

I am so sick of the naysayers here bashing everyone in site....i think we have more trolls here than actual clear-thinking DUers...I used to believe that Democrats were critical-thinkers, had reasoning power, and good old common sense...after reading some of the hateful, unwarranted comments on this board...I am not so sure any more..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #14)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:31 PM

26. The bad economy, the failure of Occupy, etc. has made for some understandable disgruntlement, IMO.

 

I think we can all spring back into more-or-less unity again if we can dump these loathsome Republicans next year.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #14)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:57 PM

65. +1,000 - The Nabobs have been very false, disingenuous and condescending-NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #14)

Thu May 16, 2013, 04:25 AM

100. There's a lot of good thinkers on this board.

I have most of those you described on Ignore.. so it looks pretty clean around here to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #14)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:30 AM

102. On one of the first threads about this the other day

People were already mouthing off about how the AP and their reporters had their constitutional rights violated even before all the information came out. It should surprise anyone these are the same people that repeatedly bash Obama.

Edit: and here is the thread I'm talking about. Funny how I don't see many of the outraged around now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:14 PM

16. This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information

This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information. And if I think I only know 50%, it's more probable that I only know 25% of the information... with less than half of that being actually relevant.

So yeah... I'm going to remain eyes open, mouth closed on this until I have more than 12% of the relevant information needed to reach a valid opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #16)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:31 AM

103. Probably a good policy

The other day some people already has their foot in their mouths about this. I won't hold my breath for an apology from those people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:15 PM

17. But...but...Obama....Holder...but...but

Does this mean I should wait to find out the facts before launching an attack? How boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #17)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:22 PM

22. Facts are good, and one might wonder why the AP isn't showing a major one---the

 

letter.

Why isn't the AP releasing that letter?

That alone might lead the investigative journalists to question why the AP--a news organization--hasn't provided a major piece of evidence in this 'scandal.'

Washington grand juries do strange things. They refused to give Ken Starr a true bill. They indicted Scooter Libby on a question asked by a grand juror. I'd want to investigate what's going on here....

Especially if it involved the House of Reps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #22)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:24 PM

23. The more facts the better, I say.

Reveal everything and then we might get to the truth. It may not be the truth that some people prefer, though. That's always the risk, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:33 PM

27. The letter from the government to the AP would have the code section under which

 

the grand jury was proceeding.

Looking at the code section might tell us who was being investigated--for example, if the grand jury was proceeding under violations of leaking a covert "Title 50" operation, it might point to a very specific members of Congress. Like the Gang of 8.

All I know is that if I were an investigative journalist, I'd want to see that 'letter.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:36 PM

31. Could well be. I imagine it will be revealed in time.

I hope it's at the right time to make the Republicans STFU in embarrassment and despair. That's what I hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #22)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:47 PM

36. OP claims "letter" is actually a Grand Jury Subpoena in a nat'l security case. Says AP can't

publish it, That's a claim made by the OP. I'm skeptical that is not correct as it violates Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (This is one edit after I mistook the OP's claim to be fact - my bad?)

A lot of us are jumping to conclusions here on the basis of fragmentary evidence, although I would not be surprised if it turns out it was an Intel Committee staffer who leaked to AP, which put a spin on this in its original May 7 that the Obama WH had made misleading statements about no known AQ threat to coincide with the anniversary of Bin Laden's death.

The AP article didn't reveal much - that came a day or two later with a series of reports from the WaPo and the NYT.

The operation was over and the double-agent already long extracted form Yemen by the time the AP published this. There were no lives at risk. The bit about relatives in Yemen being endangered smells like BS and an afterthought - the agent was Saudi sent in from abroad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #36)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:03 PM

45. Well, wait a second--has the AP said it isn't legally releaseable? Why are they being

 

so coy? Are we not supposed to question the MSM as to their motives?

I don't think this was Intel Committee. I think this was Gang of 8. This was a Title 50 covert op.

And the point you are missing is that Mr. Romney and the Republicans tried to use this as an Obama-based leak that showed the President 'weak' on foreign co-operation with the UK and Saudi Arabia, as documented below.

If the AP colluded with the leaker in an attempt to play a dirty trick at election time, we should know about that. Maybe the reporter was an unwitting part, maybe they weren't. But we should know who leaked a title 50 covert op in order to sway an election.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:16 AM

95. Ah, but gang of 8 means the Majority and Minority Leaders plus Chair and Ranking Members of Intel Co

Limiting that to the four House members, and then to the Repubs only, we are left with either Boehner or Cantor (depending on whether it's the Speaker or Majority Leader) and the House Intel chairman, who is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #95)

Thu May 16, 2013, 08:26 AM

109. Somehow, I don't see Boehner in that role, but Cantor? Wouldn't surprise me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #36)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:13 PM

52. They could redact it or they could state it is a GJ matter. Or they could say they can't say.

 

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #36)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:56 PM

64. I believe the OP is incorrect. Fed Rule of Cr P 6(e) states that a witness can reveal info re FedGJ

The rule is the gov't and Grand Jurors must keep it confidential, except when there is a nat'l security issue, but the witness subpoenaed may reveal whatever he likes about the experience.

Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #64)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:16 PM

75. Post 74 outlines the local rules exception and the grand juror exception.

 

Now...why are you defending the AP not publishing?

And if I'm wrong why aren't they publishing that letter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:15 PM

18. Interesting. Very, very interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:30 PM

25. "Anybody remember how in the Spring...

"Anybody remember how in the Spring of last year, Romney was trying to up his foreign policy creds?"

Romney Blasts Security Leaks as a Betrayal
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/politics/romney-blasts-security-leaks-as-an-obama-betrayal.html?pagewanted=all

Mitt Romney Accuses Obama Of Classified Material Leaks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/mitt-romney-vfw_n_1699079.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:36 PM

30. Oh--how interesting. Romney blamed Obama for the leak, and now, the AP is

 

squalling because the administration is investigating who gave them a leak of a "Title 50" covert op.

A leak that Romney tried to use as a dirty tricks.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:34 PM

28. Here's the AP email address: [email protected] Unless someone knows of a better one.

 

Let's ask them to release that letter or to explain why they won't.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #28)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:44 PM

35. I'm trying to find Gary Pruitt's...there's a 2nd letter he's not releasing, and

 

I would hope that some of the investigative journalists on this board would know some contacts in the AP organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:41 PM

34. Here's the email I just sent.

 

DOJ Acquisition of Reporters' Phone Records

Since the AP revealed it has received a letter from the DOJ regarding the acquisition of phone records recently, it seems to me that printing that letter would go a long way toward supporting your claim that this was an unwarranted intrusion.

Rumors are that the letter mentioned a grand jury investigation so it's understandable if you were not to print the entire contents, only redacted portions.

But the full nature of the letter needs to be released if common readers of the news are to be better informed. Like news organizations themselves, we are very much in favor of hearing the truth no matter where it leads.

Thank you for your time.


[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:52 PM

40. I got the DC desk email--- [email protected]

 

Here is what I sent--

Re: DOJ Grand Jury Investigation of AP phone records.

Could you release the letters that the DOJ has sent you regarding this issue? It seems an important part of this story, and I'd really like to see if these letters were from the grand jury currently investigating the Yemen bomb leak.

Why are you withholding them?

Thanks for your time.

msanthrope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #40)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:02 PM

44. Thanks! I'll send one to that address, too!

 

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #40)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:03 PM

151. Curious ~ have you heard back on this?? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliGal (Reply #151)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:31 PM

160. Not a thing. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:47 PM

37. Pretty good speculation there... I hope you are right

it would be really juicy if you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:52 PM

41. k/r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 04:55 PM

42. thankyou!

 

this is much more likely the scenario than anything the fuck to do with 'freedom of the press' that the whiners are whining about here and on the stupid corporate bought tv while demanding Obama's and Holder's heads to roll.

bells start going off loud at the defense of the media like they are some fucking sacred cows. They work for the Koch types, that is who they are, they sit silent and mewly while Bush orchestrates a mass murder, they are in the laps of arms merchants and liars and treachery. Fuck them all. And people are going to get all teary eyed for them because they are being picked on? Fuck them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #42)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:09 PM

49. People have worked themselves into such a conspiracy frenzy about this President

 

& his peeps.. it's all they can see, it fills their minds, drives their days, haunts their dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #49)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:18 PM

54. I remember when the Clenis fascinated Democrats, as well as Republicans.

 

Democrats did half the work of impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:06 PM

47. Let's hope this tidbit settles down all the freakazoids calling for Holder's head

 

Let the man do his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #47)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:10 PM

50. It's amazing what comes out of the woodwork. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:06 PM

48. Probably Scooter Libby again.. those damn leakers

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:13 PM

51. I also think it's highly likely that the leaker is a Republican.

The interesting part will be finding out which one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #51)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:16 PM

53. More interesting is the role of the AP in this--if the leaker is a Republican, then

 

this is what happened--

Republican leaks a title 50 covert op to reporter.

Reporter calls to confirm.

CIA asks for holdoff.

AP publishes early.

Republicans blame Obama for leak.

Romney blames Obama for leak.

AP IS SILENT.


The AP is either in active collusion on a dirty trick, OR, they knew they got punked, and didn't out the source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #53)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:38 PM

60. Looks like a vaible timeline, and points directly at a Republican operation.

BOOM! goes the dynamite!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #53)

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:54 PM

70. Between this and the story about the Repubs deliberately falsifying emails re: Benghazi

this is starting to look like some federal offenses may have occurred.

If this goes down the trajectory you've beautifully outlined in your thread, this will be some DEEP doo-doo for the Repubs. They will be in for some serious butt hurt. But a good chunk of GD (and we know who they are. They know too) will no doubt do all they can to ease their pain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #53)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:09 PM

156. I was wondering how the AP confrimed the veracity of the "tip."

I would have thought that the CIA would have no comment on it. But maybe they did, which seems like an amateur move.

And if the CIA didn't confirm it, then who else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:20 PM

55. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:31 PM

57. I am giving this a standing ovation. Very good news that is fit to print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:34 PM

58. This is why Senate Republican's are standing down on this


They know it would blow back in their face if they go too strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #58)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:41 PM

61. Precisely--this could be Gang of Eight.

 

That's the chairmen and ranking Members of the intelligence committee, along with the Speaker and minority leader of the House, and Senate majority and minority leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:35 PM

59. exactly, msanthrope!

there are no coinkydinks.
there is no way to sling shit without the stink leading back to the "source". love that little law of nature.
i look forward to reading how this all turns out and the name(s) of the "leaker(s)" who have jeopardized the safety of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:45 PM

63. OP- Please cite a source for your claim that a subpoenaed witness cannot publish an subpoena

I've looked around without success for authority that confirms your claim that a Grand Jury subpoena cannot be published, particularly in the DC Circuit in Nat'l Security cases.

In fact, the only source I could find that references the confidentiality of federal Grand Jury subpoenas states the opposite. Witnesses can reveal that they have been subpoenaed, even if prosecutors sometimes warn them not to: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/federal-grand-jury-crash-course.html


4. GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR THE WITNESS. Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the federal grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any “matter occurring before the grand jury” a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violations of this rule can result in sanctions or criminal contempt. The rule of federal grand jury secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a federal grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony. But some federal prosecutors attach cover letters to grand jury subpoenas, informing the witness that revealing the contents, or even the existence, of the subpoena “may impede” a criminal investigation. These cover letters then “request” that the witness not disclose the subpoena (and/or the documents requested in the subpoena) and ask the witness to notify the prosecutor if the witness has any “problems” with the non-disclosure. You should by no means put up with this nonsense. When my clients receive a cover letter like this, I usually write a polite response to the prosecutor or the case agent including the following language: “Your cover letter requests non-disclosure of the subpoena (and/or the documents requested in the subpoena) and asks to be notified if there are problems with such non-disclosure. I am reluctant to have my client take on a formal affirmative obligation, regarding either non-disclosure of the subpoena or notification of problems with such non-disclosure, beyond the requirements, if any, found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) or in some other statutory or court authority you can point me to. Rest assured, however, that my client has absolutely no desire to compromise your investigation or to publicize the existence of either the subpoena or your investigation.”

5. GRAN
5. GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR THE GOVERNMENT. As mentioned, Rule 6(e) prohibits the government from revealing “a matter occurring before the grand jury.” This prohibition of course covers the content of federal grand jury testimony. But it goes much further. The government cannot even reveal that you appeared before the federal grand jury or that you have been subpoenaed or scheduled to appear. Many prosecutors and agents get sloppy about this and reveal that a person or company has been subpoenaed. In addition, some federal grand juries have waiting rooms where multiple witnesses are invited to wait until they are called. In these situations, each witness is told, in effect, that the other witnesses waiting with him have been summoned to appear “before the grand jury.” On other occasions, members of the press, who know what day the federal grand jurors meet, have been tipped off to be at the courthouse entrance, so that they can see a grand jury witness enter and draw the obvious conclusion. Your white collar criminal defense attorney should be vigilant in guarding against these abuses and should warn the federal prosecutors handling your case not to violate grand jury secrecy with such maneuvers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #63)

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:14 PM

66. You are forgetting the DC circuit local rules.

 

Far more stringent, thanks to Ken Starr.

Under your rubric, then, why hasn't the AP published? I'd gladly be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #66)

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:20 PM

67. Local Ct. Rules don't trump Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure.

I'm pretty sure such an exception would be referenced in the sources. My bad for taking your statement at face value and repeating them without checking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #67)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:03 PM

73. If you look at rule 6e you will see the exception. And post 74 outlines

 

the local rule and grand juror exception.

Also...if I am wrong...then there is no impediment to publication. have you asked yourself why major news organization would not then print a letter from the government??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #73)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:57 PM

83. It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6).

I've looked at Rule 6(e)(3) of Federal Criminal Procedure several times, and I do not see the exception to the rule that a GJ witness may disclose his knowledge of the proceedings. However, I think what you are referring to is "Rule 6."

6(b)(2)(A) states that no secrecy may be imposed in a Grand Jury except upon jurors, court personnel, and gov't lawyers. That is restated in Chapter 2 of the DOJ Grand Jury Manual, as follows: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm

K. Non-Disclosure Orders

Restrictions on witnesses

Witnesses may not be put under any obligation of secrecy because Rule 6(e) specifically prohibits any obligation of secrecy from being "imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule."173) Consequently, witnesses are free to discuss their testimony with their own counsel, counsel for potential targets or anyone else they so choose. In appropriate circumstances, the grand jury foreman or the Government attorney may request that a witness not make any unnecessary disclosures because of possible interference with the investigation. However, when making such a request, it should be extremely clear that it is a request only and not a command and that the person making the request uses no express or implied coercion.



6(b)(4), however, dealing with sealed indictments imposes secrecy requirements on persons but that relates only to disclosure of the existence of the indictment until the subject is in custody or released. Related to this, Rule 6 -- 6(b)(6) -- states that records of a sealed indictment, including subpoenas, may also be sealed (made secret). See, below. It may be possible that if a sealed indictment has already been returned, further subpoenas and testimony could also be sealed. However, witnesses would be free to talk about receipt of such a sealed subpoena, to coin that term.

Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.

(1) Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter's notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

(3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter—other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote—may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government—that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. §3322.

(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. §401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.

(i) Any official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information. Any state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only in a manner consistent with any guidelines issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

(ii) Within a reasonable time after disclosure is made underRule 6(e)(3)(D), an attorney for the government must file, under seal, a notice with the court in the district where the grand jury convened stating that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.

(iii) As used in Rule 6(e)(3)(D), the term “foreign intelligence information” means:

(a) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against—

• actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent;

• sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent; or

• clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent; or

(b) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to—

• the national defense or the security of the United States; or

• the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte—as it may be when the government is the petitioner—the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to:

(i) an attorney for the government;

(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and

(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.

(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer, it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed, if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grand-jury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.

(4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

(5) Closed Hearing. Subject to any right to an open hearing in a contempt proceeding, the court must close any hearing to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(6) Sealed Records. Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(7) Contempt. A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.

(f) Indictment and Return. A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur. The grand jury—or its foreperson or deputy foreperson—must return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #83)

Wed May 15, 2013, 11:35 PM

90. Well, if I am wrong about the rule, then why haven't they published?

 

Think about your argument, friend.....if there is no bar to the witness publishing, then why haven't the AP--a major news organization....published???

Let's say you are right...and I am wrong....where, levey?

Where is the letter from the government?

What possible bar could exist to publishing?

Tell us, friend? Where is the letter that YOU have proven there is no bar to?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #90)

Thu May 16, 2013, 08:16 AM

106. If there's a sealed indictment, the subpoenas may also be sealed. The witness can talk about their

own experiences freely, but if their subpoena is sealed (even though they have seen it and can describe its contents), the sealed document can't be legally be published until the target is taken into custody or released.

Issuing subpoenas to others within the same organization is not only a means to gather information, it's also a way of sowing fear in the ranks and intimidating the organization to force cooperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #106)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:04 AM

110. You're conflating a few different things ...but again, why haven't they published?

 

If something is 'sealed' then it isn't being sent to them. Below I posted EFF's speculation that it was a grand jury. you may not believe me but certainly they have more credibility don't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #110)

Thu May 16, 2013, 01:38 PM

126. When an indictment is sealed, the court docs - including the subpoenas - normally are, as well.

It is contempt of court to publish sealed documents related to a sealed indictment. Indictments can remain sealed for a long time.

It seems like a contradiction. Undre Rule 6(e), a witness can talk or write freely about the subpoena he has been served and the Grand Jury he testified to. But, if the same Grand Jury issues a sealed indictment, and the court documents are sealed per Rule 7, it is illegal (contempt of court) to publish an image or to reproduce the sealed document, itself. Rules 4 (sealed indictment), 6 (sealed documents), and 7 (sanctions for revealing either) present a fine line, and most witnesses stay safely inside of it by not going into too much detail about the subpoena they were served and the proceedings, when the Grand Jury has issued a sealed indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #126)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:28 PM

134. Like I said....you are conflating a few different things. But you seem to have conceded the point

 

that this is looking more and more like a Grand Jury, and that the 'letter' is indeed, a subpoena.

You might find it interesting to read up on the jurisprudence of the local DC rules--lots of cases from around the Clinton grand jury. A fun read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #134)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:34 PM

140. Put some links out, and I'll read it.

I admit that I still don't know everything, yet, and sometimes I'm even capable of learning new things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #140)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:40 PM

143. I can't link off my Lexis account.***

 

But I will tell you a funny story--recently on this board I was accused of not being a lawyer.

The 'proof?'

I used the term 'Lexis' instead of 'LexisNexis.'

This was 'proof' according to the naysayer that I was not an attorney, because I must be thinking of the car.

Not joking....this was 'proof.'

I bet if you google "Ken Starr" 'OIC' and "Judge Holloway Johnson' you will have a fun read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #143)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:42 PM

144. I have a Lexis Acct. and Pacer.

Go ahead and post some cites (and I don't mean sites, but some of those are ok - I like Balkan, for instance).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #144)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:47 PM

146. No...I mean I cannot hotlink off this friggin' phone. If you are in Lexis, though,

 

run the sheet on Judith Miller's Subpoena (look at the docket issue), and Ken Starr's OIC OTC. Plenty to read there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #146)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:52 PM

149. Sounds like interesting bedtime reading!

Hubba, hubba . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #149)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:00 PM

150. Nah...the Clinton grand jury report is what you want for bedtime. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #143)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:06 PM

153. I remember that 'proof'! LOL!

 

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #63)

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:41 PM

68. In addition to the absence of support for such a claim, it seems that there is an absence of

 

a factual support for the speculation that "these subpoenas probably came from the grand jury ..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #68)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:11 PM

74. My dear former IRS lawyer...would you care to look at 6e (3)(B)(5) in the DOJ handbook

 

regarding the local rules provision? Further, what is your learned position on the power the grand jury foreman to demand secrecy per the manual?

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #63)

Wed May 15, 2013, 07:05 PM

72. If the very nature of the grand jury means that it operates in secrecy

why do think it would be allowed to publish its subpoenas?

Additionally, your link says that witnesses can reveal that they have been subpoenaed, not that the subpoena itself could be published.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #72)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:21 PM

78. Then they should be upfront about that -state that they cannot publish because of that reason.

 

If they're not willing to give us all the information they can, they are serving no one's interests but their own.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #78)

Wed May 15, 2013, 10:53 PM

86. I'm not sure that you read my response right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:49 PM

69. Msanthrope, I'd take one of you over 5 dozen of the Hair on Fire Brigade any damn day of the week

and twice on Sunday.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #69)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:21 PM

77. Well said...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #77)

Wed May 15, 2013, 11:33 PM

89. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:57 PM

71. K & R

This is getting interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:18 PM

76. judith Miller forever destroyed my faith in "free press"

I used to feel they were there to protect us. Now (esp after talking to my own CIA contacts) I've learned that the press can be just as corrupt.

Judy Miller needed to be publicly condemned by her colleagues. Never happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:26 PM

79. Bravo.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:45 PM

80. Two days ago, Michael Isikoff made this point:

ISIKOFF: Well, there are Justice Department regulations on this who -- which do state these subpoenas for news organizations should be crafted as narrowly as possible for a limited period of time. And that`s what the "A.P." in that extraordinary letter it wrote to Attorney General Holder today saying seems to be flouted here.

But they`re regulations, they`re not laws. And this is a criminal investigation and they do have the absolute legal authority to do this any way they want. But they would have to explain why they`re not following their own guidelines and regulations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51878006/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/


"The seizure of AP's phone records is legal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850071

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:46 PM

81. Cui bono?

GOP, that's who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cvoogt (Reply #81)

Wed May 15, 2013, 09:52 PM

82. And the ratfucking allies who heap it on.....nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 10:26 PM

85. Regarding the foreign policy creds: YES.

Things I know:
The way for Romney to look strong was stop Obama's success in combating terrorism. Eliminating the only CIA asset within AQAP and assassinating an ambassador in Libya would certainly do the trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 11:12 PM

88. The title of the OP makes a concrete claim (AP's being investigated by GJ) then doesn't back it up.

 

The OP goes no further than the middle of the second paragraph before the word "probably" pops up. Also, a Google search shows the OP as the only place on the 'net where this information can be found. The "grand jury" link at the end of paragraph six does not say the AP is the subject of the grand jury investigation. It says a grand jury is investigating the possible leak of classified information TO the AP.

From the link:

A grand jury based in Washington’s federal court has been investigating the possible leak of classified information to the AP for several months, according to a government official familiar with the probe who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing case.

Judging from the replies to the OP ("And there you have it." for example) and the recs it's received, some are taking the suppositions the OP makes as fact. I think that's a mistake.

If the word "probably" is added to the OP title (The AP's probably being investigated) it becomes something totally different than what I believe most who replied and rec'd see it as.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #88)

Wed May 15, 2013, 11:46 PM

91. Um, a subpoena means investigation. As in, if you get a subpoena, do you

 

think you are being investigated?

Why, yes. You are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #91)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:03 AM

92. If it's a fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation I apologixe.

 

I simply cannot find it stated that way anywhere.

Is it a hard fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #92)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:12 AM

94. Is "object" a legal term, defined by statute? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #94)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:14 AM

115. Thanks n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:07 AM

93. The M$M tried to slander it with the use of 'taps'

 

with make believe it was as in 'illegal wiretaps', but then backed off and admitted it was done by the book. So ho-hum...OHHH WAIT? Did you say the slime trail can be traced back to a GOPuker?

Ohhh my my...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:58 AM

96. I really hope your correct.

If so, this could get very interesting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 01:38 AM

97. Just asking again

Evidently the DOJ is casting a vast net to catch anything. The problem with wide reach is the inability to have close focus. The chances of actually finding a pattern that aids the investigation is slim. The chances that somebody panics and calls somebody for reassurance isn't too bad. If subpoenas were issued for records, were subpoenas issued for taps?
Never watch only the moving hand.
I wrote this earlier. Now after reading the speculation here. I wonder....... if anything it's been a great topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:33 AM

98. This is stupidly wrong

http://www.ap.org/Images/Letter-to-Eric-Holder_tcm28-12896.pdf
Last Friday afternoon, AP General Counsel Laura Malone received a letter from the office
of United States Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. advising that, at some unidentified time
earlier this year, the Department obtained telephone toll records for more than 20 separate
telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists. The records that were secretly obtained cover a full two-
month period in early 2012 and, at least as described in Mr. Machen’s letter, include all such records for, among other
phone lines, an AP general phone number in New York City as well as AP bureaus in New York City, Washington, D.C.,
Hartford, Connecticut, and at the House of Representatives. This action was taken without
advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice
has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were
seized by the Department


This would be easy to rebut if it were not true. Holder in his testimony said he believed the Deputy AG had authorized the subpoena for the records.

So the speculation about it coming from the grand jury isn't true.

Also, they probably will not release the letter because it contains a list of the phone numbers subpoenaed, and some of those are private lines and one would have to expect that those private lines would have to be dropped due to everyone calling them.

Wired has reported the verbiage in the letter:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/ap-plays-doj-letters-close-to-the-vest/
An article in Wired published Monday evening, however, reported on the contents of the DOJ letter.

“The letter to AP’s general counsel,” said Wired, “consisted of a single sentence that said, “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. (Section) 50.10(g)(3), the Associated Press is hereby notified that the United States Department of Justice has received toll records from April and May 2012 in response to subpoenas issued for the following telephone phone numbers.””



.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #98)

Thu May 16, 2013, 06:18 AM

105. Actually, thank you for proving my point--where is that letter? They keep referring

 

to a letter but never printing it....

And, as you note, the AG needed to sign off. Well, yes that is the procedure for a press subpoena issuing out of a grand jury, pursuant to 28 CFR 50.10 . Please note that if you don't believe me, the EFF explains that this is probably coming out of the grand jury quite nicely---

According to Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl, the most likely mechanism for Justice acquiring the information was a grand jury subpoena. (The Huffington Post's Ryan Reilly pointed to the form that Justice's attorney would have had to complete for a "Media Subpoena Request." While the process is more involved for media organizations than for other witnesses in criminal cases — for example, the Attorney General must personally approve it — Opsahl told us that he considered it the most likely route. If the government had employed a more exotic form of request, such as a national security letter, it's likely the AP still wouldn't know that data had been collected. In the case of a grand jury subpoena, the government must notify the party that it has collected the information.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/justice-department-ap-phone-records/65184/



And here's the issuing statute--
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol2-sec50-10.pdf

But I'd like to see that whole letter. Why hasn't it been printed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #105)

Thu May 16, 2013, 08:22 AM

107. Maybe the AP doesn't want to divulge the namrs

 

of the employees and other private information in the letter. Your theory hinges on your speculative reason for not publishing. Maybe they are not permitted to. Maybe they choose not to. I'll watch it play out before buying into your theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #107)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:06 AM

111. Oh...watching it play out now? Awesome. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #111)

Thu May 16, 2013, 11:33 AM

120. Yes, if the alternative is unfounded speculation

 

from an anomymous "defense" attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #120)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:29 PM

135. That might be the funniest thing you've ever written to me! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #107)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:50 AM

116. They can redact or they can state they cannot publish.

 

To not give the context of the letter is not good journalism. This isn't an 'us versus them' situation. News organizations are supposed to publish a full account as possible and let the readers make up their own minds.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 04:32 AM

101. Very Informative OP, msanthrope..

thank you. Now, I'm aware of "the letter", too.

"Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP phone records in leak investigation

The office of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia on Monday released a statement saying it is not required to notify a media organization in advance of issuing such subpoenas if doing so “would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

Too bad all this wasn't available right away before so many went off half cocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:59 AM

104. I hope it's Cantor, if he's in the Gang, is he? nt

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 07:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #104)

Thu May 16, 2013, 10:58 AM

119. I hope it is Issa.

 

He needs to be investigated, AGAIN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #119)

Thu May 16, 2013, 10:26 PM

166. That would be sweet! I don't know offhand

who is in the Gang of 8, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 08:24 AM

108. Excellent and informative post. Thank you. k&r n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:11 AM

114. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 10:31 AM

117. "The AP's being investigated by a grand jury"

 

You're stating that as fact in your title

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Reply #117)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:48 PM

147. Yes. You get a subpoena, you are being investigated. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 10:55 AM

118. Question for msanthrope

msanthrope, I seem to remember that you posted once that you were a Party official. Is my memory correct on that or have I confused you with someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #118)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:32 PM

137. No, comrade, I am not a "Party official." Seriously, though, I do work for various

 

Democratic campaigns, in different capacities. But I am a very, very small cog.

Most recently I was working for Obama 2012 as a attorney. I spoke on Steve Leser's show on Election Night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #137)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:45 PM

145. Thanks

I thought you had mentioned in a previous post that you held some type of paid position within the Democratic Party or that you were an elected official. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else? Anyway, thanks for the response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #145)

Thu May 16, 2013, 06:10 PM

165. There are some Party people on this site. I think it's up to them to say who

 

they are, but I also know that we have elected officials, and of course, Agent Mike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 11:40 AM

121. If Boomerang Tossing Were An Olympic Event

GOP could bring home the Gold! Sounds like this is heating up and predict it WILL be covered by MSM. This is blood in the water for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynzke (Reply #121)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:21 PM

132. Love yr description/analogy.

Also found this of interest:


From the UK Guardian's Glenn Greenwald:
"As a result of the last week, there is an undeniable and quite substantial sea change in how the establishment media is thinking and speaking about Obama. The ultimate purveyors of Beltway media conventional wisdom (CW), Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei, published an article yesterday headlined “DC turns on Obama”, writing that “the town is turning on President Obama – and this is very bad news for this White House” and “reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.” The Washington Post’s political reporter, Dan Balz, another CW bellwether, wrote that these controversies “reflect questions about the administration that predate the revelations of the past few days“. About the AP story, Balz wrote that “no one can recall anything as far-reaching as what the Justice Department apparently did in secretly gathering information about the work of AP journalists.”

Full article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/obama-civil-liberties-sea-change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:42 PM

122. This thread makes me smile-Thanks for the information

I attempted to ignore all of the people calling for AG Holder to be fired or to be impeached. The DOJ has the right to request this information in connection with a criminal investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:50 PM

124. Interesting Blog post

Here's an interesting blog post:

Drones, leaks and loose lips: underneath the AP scandal

by digby

[link:http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/drones-leaks-and-loose-lips-underneath.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #124)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:52 PM

125. He makes the wrong point.

 

Someone still leaked a national security secret to the AP and that person needs to be identified.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 01:51 PM

127. In the bubble

Excellent Greenwald column today.

Excerpt:

<snip>

Second, we yet again see one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy: the way in which it has transformed and degraded so many progressive precincts. Almost nobody is defending the DOJ's breathtaking targeting of AP, and with good reason: as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press made clear yesterday, it's unprecedented:

"In the thirty years since the Department issued guidelines governing its subpoena practice as it relates to phone records from journalists, none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for news gathering materials was deployed by the Department, particularly without notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicial review."

But there are a few people excusing or outright defending the DOJ here: namely, some progressive blogs and media outlets. They are about the only ones willing to defend this sweeping attempt to get the phone records of AP journalists.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/obama-civil-liberties-sea-change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #127)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:05 PM

129. 'Sweeping attempt'.

 

Out of the AP's hundreds of phone lines, only 20 were requested of the phone companies, and only for a 2 month period.

Sounds like a measured request to me but that's of course in the eye of the beholder.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:18 PM

130. And of course, in a nation that is slipping into

Totalitarianism more each day, what need is there for a free press?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #130)

Thu May 16, 2013, 11:51 PM

168. Do you think we have a free press in practice?

I think it is less intrusion by government and more a question of ownership interests. In my opinion, our major media outlets are not so much "free" as "paid for." (Just my .02.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #168)

Fri May 17, 2013, 04:49 PM

170. Your statements are not wrong, but the revolving door between industry

And government agencies, and of course the situation where the Coporate Persons can buy candidates, all that translates into what Eisenhower originally called the Military/Industrial/Governmental complex.

One of the first things out of Bill Casey's mouth when he was made head of the CIA in the 1980's was a quote to the effect that over the next 15 years, everything the press would tell the American people would be a lie.

If something is touted as a headline, I really begin to believe the opposite is true.

In one instance, that regarding the gas additive MTBE, I did a detailed and multi-year account of how the Big Media forces handled the situation. This is why I am so very dubious of what our press says, at all times, about everything. (Other than one of the fluff stories, like "Golden Retrievers make good pets."

The piece is a good read, so feel free to see what you think when/if you have a chance:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/06/22/540267/-The-TRUTH-Versus-the-Mainstream-Media

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:31 PM

136. Let me get this straight....

Congress, who spent much of President Obama's first term criticizing him for allowing leaks, leaked information to the AP, and are now criticizing the Obama Administration for investigating a leak? Do I have that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #136)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:32 PM

139. Why, yes--that's about the long and the short of it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #139)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:35 PM

141. I would like to say this shocks me.

But, nothing these fucking fuckers do shocks me any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:32 PM

138. I recommended this because I want the conversation front and center

Thing is, I'm still pretty hinky about this change in policy regarding the first amendment. I've thought for years that the press had given away their freedom willingly and that pissed me off to no end, but having their specific right as spelled out in the first amendment thrown to the wind, I'm appalled.

You want information, you subpoena the people involved and if they will not talk (Judith Miller - I despise that woman and yet she did what journalists are supposed to do when asked by a grand jury to release their sources), you throw them in jail for contempt but you do NOT take their phone records, their computers, etc. This is new, scary, and in my opinion, wrong.

I hope AP sues and this gets to the Supreme Court. And I hope that all those frothing at the mouth constitutionalists on our Supreme Court knock the DOJ and our President back a few steps. They stepped over the line with this.

And on a side note, does anybody remember that Obama is a constitutional scholar. I especially wonder if Obama remembers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #138)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:37 PM

142. The thing is, tavalon--this isn't new. The grand jury has always

 

had the power of subpoena. And on certain records--i.e.--third-party held records, the subpoena does not go to you, it goes to your service provider--your phone company, your bank, your electric company, etc.

This wasn't a wiretap--this was phone records. And while the Justice Department has procedures defined by statute regarding the press...the penalty for breaking these procedures is administrative. (and it doesn't look like they were broken.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #142)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:07 PM

154. I thought it was actually going back and listening to the conversations

Still, I think we're parsing things here and besides, just because the Grand Jury can, doesn't mean that they should step on the first amendment. It's easy enough to do some old fashioned police foot work to find out who the leaker was and who he/she leaked it to is and should be irrelevant and private.

A few years ago we were all in a dither about TIA, Total Information Awareness. No one seems to care that it was recently revealed that the cell companies are keeping all conversations. So, can we be sure that just records were subpoenaed? I don't think we can.

Do we just forget the Constitution when it's our party that has the White House? I can't say I can hang with that. It is my opinion that the constitution, specifically the First Amendment has been breached and really, with the exception of a few people here, that seems to be the general consensus.

And on a purely practical basis, it is my opinion thus far, (open to change) that Obama just handed Congress a real scandal, something that he really can be impeached upon. And that pisses me off because there will be no chance for anything to get done if Congress is getting it's impeachment on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #154)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:30 PM

159. Absolutely no wiretap. This is a subpeona of certain business records, allowed

 

by statute, pursuant to the powers of a grand jury.

This is completely constitutional. The 1st amendment does not give reporters special privileges to commit or abet crimes. This is actually more of a 4th amendment issue--why should the press get a privilege you or I certainly would not?

Impeachment? Not a chance of an impeachment over a valid grand jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #159)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:33 PM

161. So, where did they find the craptastic idiots for Clinton?

I do hope, almost believe, that these juries are selected without bias but I doubt. Hope, belief and doubt. What strange bedfellows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #161)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:37 PM

162. What??? The Clinton DC grand jury rocked! They refused to true bill

 

and Kenny had to go to the House.

Now, as for Impeachment, why would the President be impeached over this? Can you name the crime the President has done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #162)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:43 PM

163. Allowing Holder to secretly gather the information

A blunder the Bush maladministration did only once and it wasn't on the Scooter Libby thing. I don't want him impeached. I also don't want a Unitary Executive with ever expanding powers. I can hold both of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #163)

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:47 PM

164. What? Congress allows this, by statute--here's the link to 28 CFR 50.10

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol2-sec50-10.pdf


How can you possibly proclaim a 'Unitary Executive' with a law passed by CONGRESS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:51 PM

148. Perhaps we, the public, should start demanding that the AP release the letter. Produce the letter.

I also wish that this thread gets tossed to someone with some journalistic credibility to followup on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #148)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:04 PM

152. Here is the email address to use: [email protected]

 

I sent a message yesterday, the text of which is elsewhere in this thread, as is msanthrope's.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #148)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:42 AM

169. I think the AP should release the letter..redacting phone numbers

 

if they need to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:08 PM

155. I remember Romney's smirk when he jumped on the Benghazi event with mostly wrong information. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:17 PM

157. Some of us recall PO saying on 9/12/12, or there-abouts, an INVESTIGATION was under-way AND

people could expect that there was/is a great deal more stuff to know about this and PO even said, as I recall, that it would be VERY important when the facts come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 04:01 PM

158. little kick. . . .n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 10:48 PM

167. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread