Obama AG now spying on the media

[Fern]

So last year everyone on the right was outraged that Obama was not investigating the Stuxnet leaks:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/01...ama-administration-trend-of-classified-leaks/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/156501
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/11/obama-and-intel-leaks-investigation-this-smells-like-fix/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-obama-administration-willfully-leaked-e/


Now that there is an investigation into who leaked classified intel the right is outraged at the investigation?

I've been watching the news and the position of the Dems and Repubs is virtually identical.

I haven't seen a single repub decry the investigation (I'm including Congresspersons and serious commentator etc. BTW: That wouldn't include Limbaugh or Bech, for example, I don't listen to them.).

Everyone's concern seems to be the broad nature of the records siezed. Only about 5 people in the AP were involved in the story, yet records from over a hundred AP employee in various locations were nabbed, including opersonal cell phone and home phone.

It's the 'excessiveness' everyone is complaining about.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I've been watching the news and the position of the Dems and Repubs is virtually identical.

I haven't seen a single repub decry the investigation (I'm including Congresspersons and serious commentator etc. BTW: That wouldn't include Limbaugh or Bech, for example, I don't listen to them.).

Everyone's concern seems to be the broad nature of the records siezed. Only about 5 people in the AP were involved in the story, yet records from over a hundred AP employee in various locations were nabbed, including opersonal cell phone and home phone.

It's the 'excessiveness' everyone is complaining about.

Fern

If the GOP is so concerned about the over-breadth of the subpoenas, maybe they shouldn't have fillibustered a media shield bill in 2007? That law would have required the DoJ to submit the subpoenas for court approval, and had the subpoenas been over broad, the court could have ordered them to narrow the scope. I don't understand how you can fillibuster a law that would protect the media from this very thing, then complain about it when it happens.

None of this makes it OK if the DoJ subpoenas were in fact over-broad. It's just that I have trouble accepting the GOP's johnny-come-lately complaints about it.

 

[waggy]

If the GOP is so concerned about the over-breadth of the subpoenas, maybe they shouldn't have fillibustered a media shield bill in 2007? That law would have required the DoJ to submit the subpoenas for court approval, and had the subpoenas been over broad, the court could have ordered them to narrow the scope. I don't understand how you can fillibuster a law that would protect the media from this very thing, then complain about it when it happens.

None of this makes it OK if the DoJ subpoenas were in fact over-broad. It's just that I have trouble accepting the GOP's johnny-come-lately complaints about it.

wtf.

media is already protected. another law really wouldn't have curbed the behavior they mess up and went over board to look back and blame the GOP for this is nothing short of being a political hack.


both GOP and DNC are blasting the DOJ and rightfully so over this. not because they are investigating but the broad scope. more laws when there is already some in place to stop this wouldn't help.

 

[michal1980]

If the GOP is so concerned about the over-breadth of the subpoenas, maybe they shouldn't have fillibustered a media shield bill in 2007? That law would have required the DoJ to submit the subpoenas for court approval, and had the subpoenas been over broad, the court could have ordered them to narrow the scope. I don't understand how you can fillibuster a law that would protect the media from this very thing, then complain about it when it happens.

None of this makes it OK if the DoJ subpoenas were in fact over-broad. It's just that I have trouble accepting the GOP's johnny-come-lately complaints about it.

bla bla bla

apparently bush talked about it, and decided not to do what Obama did.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/alberto-gonzales-subpoena-leak-91405.html?hp=r7

 

[woolfe9998]

bla bla bla

apparently bush talked about it, and decided not to do what Obama did.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/alberto-gonzales-subpoena-leak-91405.html?hp=r7

Bla bla bla is not an answer of any substance. If you wanted to post the Politico link, go ahead, but it doesn't answer the point I made.

 

[michal1980]

Bla bla bla is not an answer of any substance. If you wanted to post the Politico link, go ahead, but it doesn't answer the point I made.

it means that the GOP didn't need the bill. I geuss if they would have thought Obama would go after the media with a huge fish net, they might have passed it. But the GOP themselves came to a far different conclusion about how to go after leaks then Obama and the democrats.

 

[woolfe9998]

wtf.

media is already protected. another law really wouldn't have curbed the behavior they mess up and went over board to look back and blame the GOP for this is nothing short of being a political hack.


both GOP and DNC are blasting the DOJ and rightfully so over this. not because they are investigating but the broad scope. more laws when there is already some in place to stop this wouldn't help.

Uh no, the media is not already "protected." The DoJ has some of its own regs which it *might* have violated here. The trouble with the regs is that they leave the subpoenas up to the DoJ and rely on them exercising self-restraint. This statute would have required them to submit them for court approval first, much like getting a warrant. Assuming these subpoenas were over-broad, that law would very possibly have prevented this. Wouldn't you rather subpoenas of press records be submitted for court review rather than just relying on law enforcement's restraint and discretion?

I'm not blasting the GOP for the over-broad subpoenas (assuming they were over-broad). That is on the DoJ. I am, however, separately criticizing them for having filibustered that bill because I think it's a good bill. It's now being proposed again, and if anything at all good comes of this, it would be getting it passed.

 

[Bowfinger]

wtf.

media is already protected. another law really wouldn't have curbed the behavior they mess up and went over board to look back and blame the GOP for this is nothing short of being a political hack.


both GOP and DNC are blasting the DOJ and rightfully so over this. not because they are investigating but the broad scope. more laws when there is already some in place to stop this wouldn't help.

I don't think the point is blaming the GOP, but rather pointing out their hypocrisy. The law the Republicans filibustered would indeed have curbed such abuse by requiring judicial review. That said, the blame here rests with Obama's Justice Department. It made the choice to pursue its fishing expedition. The GOP just enabled it.

 

[jackschmittusa]

michal1980

Hard to follow your reasoning. Most of us don't need laws against robbing banks.

When it gets pointed out that a perfectly legal act might be undesirable, most people with a brain would agree to prohibit it before it occurs. A common sense "close the barn door before the horse gets out".

The more likely explanation is they wanted to keep the option open.

 

[xBiffx]

This belongs more than just here but this is hilarious.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/eric-holder-just-doesnt-know

 

[unokitty]

 

[monovillage]

Uh no, the media is not already "protected." The DoJ has some of its own regs which it *might* have violated here. The trouble with the regs is that they leave the subpoenas up to the DoJ and rely on them exercising self-restraint. This statute would have required them to submit them for court approval first, much like getting a warrant. Assuming these subpoenas were over-broad, that law would very possibly have prevented this. Wouldn't you rather subpoenas of press records be submitted for court review rather than just relying on law enforcement's restraint and discretion?

I'm not blasting the GOP for the over-broad subpoenas (assuming they were over-broad). That is on the DoJ. I am, however, separately criticizing them for having filibustered that bill because I think it's a good bill. It's now being proposed again, and if anything at all good comes of this, it would be getting it passed.

Was the Bill the Republicans filibustered a specific and targeted Bill or was it an omnibus Bill that had all sorts of crap and bad legislation included in it? Do you have a link to the Bill?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If the GOP is so concerned about the over-breadth of the subpoenas, maybe they shouldn't have fillibustered a media shield bill in 2007? That law would have required the DoJ to submit the subpoenas for court approval, and had the subpoenas been over broad, the court could have ordered them to narrow the scope. I don't understand how you can fillibuster a law that would protect the media from this very thing, then complain about it when it happens.

None of this makes it OK if the DoJ subpoenas were in fact over-broad. It's just that I have trouble accepting the GOP's johnny-come-lately complaints about it.

House Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the shield bill. If Democrats would have allowed a floor vote on an energy bill...the shield bill would have likely been passed. Love the way this is being spun though.

 

[ivwshane]

House Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the shield bill. If Democrats would have allowed a floor vote on an energy bill...the shield bill would have likely been passed. Love the way this is being spun though.

What does one bill have to do with the other?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What does one bill have to do with the other?

It was political retaliation. Senate Dems wouldn't give Reps a floor vote on an energy bill...Reps filibustered the shield law in retaliation.

 

[ivwshane]

It was political retaliation. Senate Dems wouldn't give Reps a floor vote on an energy bill...Reps filibustered the shield law in retaliation.

Lol and that's reasonable to you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lol and that's reasonable to you?

That Dems wouldn't allow a floor vote? No. That Reps retaliated? No.

 

[woolfe9998]

Was the Bill the Republicans filibustered a specific and targeted Bill or was it an omnibus Bill that had all sorts of crap and bad legislation included in it? Do you have a link to the Bill?

While I'm unimpressed with DSF's "retaliation" argument which I would refer to as the classic "neener, neener, neener" defense, you raise a completely legitimate concern here that deserves a response.

This is a 2-3 page bill which is very narrow. It only addresses shielding the media from government intrusion. What the bill essentially does is re-iterate what the current DoJ regulations already state about exhausting other methods etc, BUT it puts the decision in the hands of a federal judge rather than the DoJ itself:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035/text

Let me know if you see anything offensive in there.

(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure- In any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony, or produce any document, relating to protected information, unless a Federal court determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person--

(1) that the party seeking to compel production of such testimony or document has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources (other than a covered person) of the testimony or document;

(2) that--

(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a [Struck out->] person [<-Struck out] source other than the covered person--

(i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred;

(ii) the testimony or document sought is essential to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution; and

(iii) in a criminal investigation or prosecution of an unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information by a person with authorized access to such information, such unauthorized disclosure has caused or will cause significant, clear, and articulable harm to the national security; or

(B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a [Struck out->] person [<-Struck out] source other than the covered person, the testimony or document sought is essential to the resolution of the matter; and

(3) that nondisclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest, taking into account both the public interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.

(b) Limitations on Content of Information- The content of any testimony or document that is compelled under subsection (a) shall, to the extent possible--

(1) be limited to the purpose of verifying published information or describing any surrounding circumstances relevant to the accuracy of such published information; and

(2) be narrowly tailored in subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling production of peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information.

This bill is now back in play and IMO should be supported on both sides of the isle.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

While I'm unimpressed with DSF's "retaliation argument" which I would refer to as the classic "neener, neener, neener" defense, you raise a completely legitimate concern here that deserves a response.

Then please explain why House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the shield law and why Senate Republicans filibustered it?

 

[woolfe9998]

Then please explain why House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the shield law and why Senate Republicans filibustered it?

I don't care. Retaliation is not an excuse for blocking a good bill. I don't even know if the bill the dems blocked was a good one or not. Look at the text of the very simple bill I linked above. I don't understand what there is to even argue about. What was in the energy bill the dems blocked? Was it, in Mono's words, an "omnibus bill" with a bunch of crap in it? Was it more controversial than what is in the media shield law, because I don't see the shield law as really all that debatable unless you just think it's A-OK for the DoJ to use its own unfettered discretion when it subpoeanas press records. My guess is that the dems blocked a bill they didn't like, and in retaliation the repubs blocked a bill they had no qualms with. In fact, it's pretty clear that this is what happened given, as you point out, that House repubs voted in favor of it.

But let's say the dems blocked a good energy bill. That was a bad one on the dems, IF the bill was a good one. It still doesn't justify blocking another good bill in retaliation.

So far as both sides having used the fillibuster, well we don't really need to talk about that, do we? We all know the dems in the Bush years used it more than any in the past, then the repubs in the Obama years topped the dems by a wide margin. We can just call touche on that. The real issue is the merits of the bills, and it looks like there was a real disagreement about the one but not the other. How can you justify blocking a bill that you know is good? Energy policy is hotly disputed between the parties, but a simple media shield law really should not be.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't care. Retaliation is not an excuse for blocking a good bill. I don't even know if the bill the dems blocked was a good one or not. Look at the text of the very simple bill I linked above. I don't understand what there is to even argue about. What was in the energy bill the dems blocked? Was it, in Mono's words, an "omnibus bill" with a bunch of crap in it? Was it more controversial than what is in the media shield law, because I don't see the shield law as really all that debatable unless you just think it's A-OK for the DoJ to use its own unfettered discretion when it subpoeanas press records.

But let's say the dems blocked a good energy bill. That was a bad one on the dems, IF the bill was a good one. It still doesn't justify blocking another good bill in retaliation.

So far as both sides having used the fillibuster, well we don't really need to talk about that, do we? We all know the dems in the Bush years used it more than any in the past, then the repubs in the Obama years topped the dems by a wide margin. We can just call touche on that. The real issue is the merits of the bills.

I never said that retaliation was an acceptable excuse for blocking the media shield bill and said as much in Post #117. There's more to this story than meets the eye and I merely explained what happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.co....gov/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x6587

 

[monovillage]

While I'm unimpressed with DSF's "retaliation" argument which I would refer to as the classic "neener, neener, neener" defense, you raise a completely legitimate concern here that deserves a response.

This is a 2-3 page bill which is very narrow. It only addresses shielding the media from government intrusion. What the bill essentially does is re-iterate what the current DoJ regulations already state about exhausting other methods etc, BUT it puts the decision in the hands of a federal judge rather than the DoJ itself:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035/text

Let me know if you see anything offensive in there.
This bill is now back in play and IMO should be supported on both sides of the isle.

Thanks wolfie! Yes, i do support this Bill and would hope it passes, however it shouldn't be seen as an excuse for what the AG or his deputy did in terms of what they did concerning the press in this issue. Imo they still needed a warrant signed by a judge to get those records.

 

[OutHouse]

So is this thread about the AP raid or a cspan comentary about a bill?

 

[woolfe9998]

So is this thread about the AP raid or a cspan comentary about a bill?

What don't you like about the discussion of the bill? You don't think it's relevant to the thread topic?

 

[woolfe9998]

Thanks wolfie! Yes, i do support this Bill and would hope it passes, however it shouldn't be seen as an excuse for what the AG or his deputy did in terms of what they did concerning the press in this issue. Imo they still needed a warrant signed by a judge to get those records.

Agreed. It isn't an excuse. And I too support the bill and hope it passes so that we aren't in another thread about this in another 2 or 10 years.