Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak. [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)128. I think you got it - all with due process - AP's cred will go down with the pubbies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak. [View all]
msanthrope
May 2013
OP
This is going to circle right back to a Republican leaking classified information, yet once again.
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#1
The House of Reps AP phone wasn't subpoenaed for nothing...and why won't they release the 'letter?'
msanthrope
May 2013
#4
I am starting to wonder when the Republicans in Congress will start screaming in unison
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#7
Here's something interesting--it wasn't done by National Security Letter....
msanthrope
May 2013
#19
No Patriot Act or NDAA--plain old DC grand jury....and here's the thing on the letter
msanthrope
May 2013
#24
Yep. I'm willing bet there are some Republican undies getting fudged right about now.
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#29
Yep. And the MSM will suddenly decide this story isn't "news worthy". n/t
bushisanidiot
May 2013
#38
I think you got it - all with due process - AP's cred will go down with the pubbies.
freshwest
May 2013
#128
Well, if I was an investigative journalist, I might ask why a major news organization
msanthrope
May 2013
#6
It will show just how far in the tank the AP is for them, sucking up to Republicans
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#9
Yes--on the rest of thread there is a bit of a debate about that. I would like it answered, and
msanthrope
May 2013
#133
You know, we have investigative journalists on this board. I want some answers. nt
msanthrope
May 2013
#11
I have a confession--dyslexia forces me to use the spell check. When I don't,
msanthrope
May 2013
#33
The bad economy, the failure of Occupy, etc. has made for some understandable disgruntlement, IMO.
randome
May 2013
#26
This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information
LanternWaste
May 2013
#16
Facts are good, and one might wonder why the AP isn't showing a major one---the
msanthrope
May 2013
#22
The letter from the government to the AP would have the code section under which
msanthrope
May 2013
#27
OP claims "letter" is actually a Grand Jury Subpoena in a nat'l security case. Says AP can't
leveymg
May 2013
#36
Well, wait a second--has the AP said it isn't legally releaseable? Why are they being
msanthrope
May 2013
#45
Ah, but gang of 8 means the Majority and Minority Leaders plus Chair and Ranking Members of Intel Co
hedda_foil
May 2013
#95
Somehow, I don't see Boehner in that role, but Cantor? Wouldn't surprise me. n/t
winter is coming
May 2013
#109
They could redact it or they could state it is a GJ matter. Or they could say they can't say.
randome
May 2013
#52
I believe the OP is incorrect. Fed Rule of Cr P 6(e) states that a witness can reveal info re FedGJ
leveymg
May 2013
#64
Here's the AP email address: [email protected]. Unless someone knows of a better one.
randome
May 2013
#28
I'm trying to find Gary Pruitt's...there's a 2nd letter he's not releasing, and
msanthrope
May 2013
#35
People have worked themselves into such a conspiracy frenzy about this President
Voice for Peace
May 2013
#49
Let's hope this tidbit settles down all the freakazoids calling for Holder's head
railsback
May 2013
#47
More interesting is the role of the AP in this--if the leaker is a Republican, then
msanthrope
May 2013
#53
Looks like a vaible timeline, and points directly at a Republican operation.
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#60
Between this and the story about the Repubs deliberately falsifying emails re: Benghazi
Number23
May 2013
#70
I am giving this a standing ovation. Very good news that is fit to print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anansi1171
May 2013
#57
OP- Please cite a source for your claim that a subpoenaed witness cannot publish an subpoena
leveymg
May 2013
#63
It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6).
leveymg
May 2013
#83
If there's a sealed indictment, the subpoenas may also be sealed. The witness can talk about their
leveymg
May 2013
#106
You're conflating a few different things ...but again, why haven't they published?
msanthrope
May 2013
#110
When an indictment is sealed, the court docs - including the subpoenas - normally are, as well.
leveymg
May 2013
#126
Like I said....you are conflating a few different things. But you seem to have conceded the point
msanthrope
May 2013
#134
No...I mean I cannot hotlink off this friggin' phone. If you are in Lexis, though,
msanthrope
May 2013
#146
In addition to the absence of support for such a claim, it seems that there is an absence of
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#68
My dear former IRS lawyer...would you care to look at 6e (3)(B)(5) in the DOJ handbook
msanthrope
May 2013
#74
Then they should be upfront about that -state that they cannot publish because of that reason.
randome
May 2013
#78
Msanthrope, I'd take one of you over 5 dozen of the Hair on Fire Brigade any damn day of the week
Number23
May 2013
#69
The title of the OP makes a concrete claim (AP's being investigated by GJ) then doesn't back it up.
cherokeeprogressive
May 2013
#88
If it's a fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation I apologixe.
cherokeeprogressive
May 2013
#92
Actually, thank you for proving my point--where is that letter? They keep referring
msanthrope
May 2013
#105
No, comrade, I am not a "Party official." Seriously, though, I do work for various
msanthrope
May 2013
#137
There are some Party people on this site. I think it's up to them to say who
msanthrope
May 2013
#165
Absolutely no wiretap. This is a subpeona of certain business records, allowed
msanthrope
May 2013
#159
Perhaps we, the public, should start demanding that the AP release the letter. Produce the letter.
Skidmore
May 2013
#148
I remember Romney's smirk when he jumped on the Benghazi event with mostly wrong information. nt
patrice
May 2013
#155