Justice Department subpoenas AP phone records, apparently looking for leaker

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Maddow is normally one of the few decent spots in our media, but she is FoS equating this to the historical threats and press intimidation she is citing. This wasn't an instance of whistleblowing of government wrongdoing being investigated but a leak of classified information of ongoing national security operations. And the DoJ has every right to investigate that. The press really needs to get over the high horse they're on.

The press has always been on that high horse pretty much.

I thought Maddow actually was a lot closer to your point than you do, and closer than most of the media I've seen.

I didn't think think she equated this to historical examples, just that she gave background.

One incident really was informing about the media, if I recall it correctly. Early on, the Obama press team wanted to make a point and move Fox to a less presitigious position in the press room seating. The press corps, who could have plenty of reason for loving to see that done for reasons of bad journalism, instead rallied to Fox's side to demand they get better seating. The press seems to unify strongly around issues like this.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
The press has always been on that high horse pretty much.

I thought Maddow actually was a lot closer to your point than you do, and closer than most of the media I've seen.

I didn't think think she equated this to historical examples, just that she gave background.

She went through all those past examples and lead into the current one with "It's exactly the same thing."

One incident really was informing about the media, if I recall it correctly. Early on, the Obama press team wanted to make a point and move Fox to a less presitigious position in the press room seating. The press corps, who could have plenty of reason for loving to see that done for reasons of bad journalism, instead rallied to Fox's side to demand they get better seating. The press seems to unify strongly around issues like this.

Starting to hold the press accountable for doing a terrible job would put them all in danger.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
She went through all those past examples and lead into the current one with "It's exactly the same thing."

If she had said that about the list of historical examples, I'd agree with you.

But I re-watched it now for the 'exactly the same thing line', and she was only referring to one incident by that, a 2006 incident when the Bush administration had gone after leakers by telling ABC News 'we know who you're talking to' - a reference to accessing phone records of who they had calls with. That is close enough her statement is not unreasonable.

Starting to hold the press accountable for doing a terrible job would put them all in danger.

I don't quite think that was the issue, though. It seemed it more just a question of 'professional loyalty' and not wanting a precedent in case next time it might be a President singling them out for sanctions without as good a reason as there was for Fox. The Clinton adminitration had a media war when he became president he lost.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Another bit of information on the ubpoena:

It is reported the subpoena is under the authorization of post-Watergate laws that allow Justice to issue these subpoenas without a judge's approval, but there are a variety of restrictions including that they have to exhaust any other way of getting the information they need, and having to notify the press organization what they did.

The AP's legal challenge appears to be based on suspicious the Justice Department did not meet its requirements under the regulations.

In 2006 there was a bill to require a judge's approval for a warrant; Republicans filibustered it.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
The Maddow piece that Craig links is definitely worth viewing, whether you agree or not. It's far more in depth than anything else you'll encounter on this topic.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Well Maddow does predict that ultimately the press will win this fight. It may just happen sooner rather than later.

What's interesting about this is what stance will the GOP take this time around. Will they filibuster it again? If so, how can they maintain their critical stance on the DoJ's actions and remain consistent?
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
306
126
It seemed it more just a question of 'professional loyalty' and not wanting a precedent in case next time it might be a President singling them out for sanctions without as good a reason as there was for Fox. The Clinton adminitration had a media war when he became president he lost.

I'm not sure exactly what that paragraph meant, but I think most people would agree that Obama's attempted move was because of Fox's political views. It's much easier to ignore somebody calling out a question when they're in the back, and it is a subtle form of demeaning them and demonstrating that they aren't as important as others by moving them to the back, even though they are essentially one of the big 4 or 5 media outlets.

Please don't be intellectually dishonest. It had everything to do with their political viewpoint.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
306
126
Well Maddow does predict that ultimately the press will win this fight. It may just happen sooner rather than later.

What's interesting about this is what stance will the GOP take this time around. Will they filibuster it again? If so, how can they maintain their critical stance on the DoJ's actions and remain consistent?

I'll be glad if that's the case. Much like the Freedom of Information Act, which the government is already trying to de-fang, the more a government hides the more corrupt they can become.

There is a balancing act: there is national security to worry about. You can't call everything national security though, and the government just loves to do it.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Rachel Maddow did a very good segment on this, putting it in some perspective, beginning with her holding a fish (don't ask) and ending with the AP's attorney interview.

I'd suggest that Charles watch it (not a callout, responding to his saying he 'never' watches her and does watch Sean Hannity) and answer three questions.

1. Your opinion of the segment's quality relative to other news shows generally.
2. Compare the quality to Sean Hannity's.
3. Can you specifically identify any of the 'pro-Obama bias' the right loves to allege.

I'd also invite anyone who just wants a sample of Maddow to evaluate to watch it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#51885608
That was excellent, Craig. Thank you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I have to wonder, as I hear of senior government officials being investigated about this leak, why any of them would risk their position over leaking to a reporter.

The president has a long history of leaking to the press to help his agenda - when you see 'a senior White House official' type description, it's often the president - but other officials leaking in an unauthorized manner is a whole different issue. There's the rare 'leak of conscience' to expose something 'in the public interest' I can understand, but this leak was not that. It was just 'hey here's this exciting story where we got our guy snuck in undercover and thwarted a bomb plan'.

It seems pretty established the president can 'declassify on the spot' if he chooses to share information, he doesn't get prosecuted for leaking - but there's some tension there and president have sometimes infuriated the intelligence community when they reveal things that politically benefit them. It also leaves a bit of legal limbo about classification status after it's leaked.

A famous case of this I mentioned recently was when Richard Nixon was ahead by a tiny amount in 1968, and President Johnson learned from a wiretap of the South Vietnamese embassy that Richard Nixon had sabotaged his months of work getting North Vietnam to agree to peace; if he had revealed this to the nation it's almost certain it would have very appropriately cost Nixon the election, but he did not say anythinng to the public to protect the wiretap. This comes up a lot for presidents when they see false information (hopefully false) being circulated hurting them politically but there's a price to security if they correct it.

If something is told by the President to a reporter for anonymous publication, how is it legally still classified for everyone else? But it is.

Why would these other officials not only 'break the rules' - which admittedly are too tight on many things - but violate a trust and take that risk to give a reporter a scoop?

Even as a trade - 'we'll publish this story that makes you look great, and you leak to us' - doens't make it make sense.
 
Last edited: