Obama AG now spying on the media

[woolfe9998]

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

Yeah I understand. I just think your input makes the GOP look worse, not better. Based on my description, it sounded like the GOP had some substantive opposition to the bill, even if it wasn't a good or strong opposition. What you've added is that the GOP had no actual opposition to it, but blocked it anyway because the dems blocked a bill that they actually opposed. Doesn't sound so good. However, I can let it go if they do the right thing and vote for it this time. I don't care about the blame game here. I'd rather fix the problem for the future.

 

[Fern]

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

No. What's relevant is if DoJ guidelines were violated.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
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.

It's not just the GOP. And it's not "johnny-come-lately" if this was unprecedented as has been claimed.

The whole "well they should have passed a bill" line of discussion smacks of deflection.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah I understand. I just think your input makes the GOP look worse, not better. Based on my description, it sounded like the GOP had some substantive opposition to the bill, even if it wasn't a good or strong opposition. What you've added is that the GOP had no actual opposition to it, but blocked it anyway because the dems blocked a bill that they actually opposed. Doesn't sound so good. However, I can let it go if they do the right thing and vote for it this time. I don't care about the blame game here. I'd rather fix the problem for the future.

Dems blocked a floor vote on the energy bill because many Democrats supported it and Senate leadership feared that it would pass. It's almost always about politics...and rarely about doing the "right thing".

 

[woolfe9998]

No. What's relevant is if DoJ guidelines were violated.

Fern

That's a pretty narrow conception of what is relevant in the thread when we're talking about a bill that would have taken this out of the hands of the DoJ and its regs and placed it before a judge instead. And not only was the bill killed in 2007, but it is now back in play precisely because of this incident. I say it's more than fair game for discussion. In fact, it's the only aspect of the discussion that concerns improving the situation for the future.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not just the GOP. And it's not "johnny-come-lately" if this was unprecedented as has been claimed.

The whole "well they should have passed a bill" line of discussion smacks of deflection.

Fern

Nope, not a deflection. I do separately blame the GOP for blocking the bill without diminishing DoJ's own blameworthiness (assuming they did violate their regs). But what I'm really interested in is seeing the bill pass this time.

 

[OutHouse]

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

none at all.

 

[woolfe9998]

none at all.

Well sorry, but you're dead wrong. And your reasons for wanting it out of the discussion are clear. You're a partisan child, and you're butt-hurt because it distracts from your glorious moment of blaming Obama. Ah, sorry that your precious GOP doesn't have totally clean hands either. Better luck next time.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well sorry, but you're dead wrong. And your reasons for wanting it out of the discussion are clear. You're a partisan child, and you're butt-hurt because it distracts from your glorious moment of blaming Obama. Ah, sorry that your precious GOP doesn't have totally clean hands either. Better luck next time.

You don't think this administration deserves heat over this issue?

 

[woolfe9998]

You don't think this administration deserves heat over this issue?

You already heard me say that the GOP having killed that bill doesn't diminish the DoJ's blameworthiness. What did you think I meant by that?

A basic lesson in moral responsibility is this. One party can be responsible for something. If it turns out another party is also responsible, it doesn't necessarily reduce the first person's moral responsibility at all.

DoJ here had nothing but a bunch of loose regs to restrain it, which is a shame, but then they failed to exercise the self-restraint that they quite clearly should have exercised. This is no laughing matter. The press can't have every potential source shying away because they think the government is going to get the press phone records and discover who they are, or else we'll never find out what happens behind closed doors in our government. It's no laughing matter and I take it very seriously. If they violated the regs, some heads should roll, but even if not, what they did was still wrong.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
DoJ here had nothing but a bunch of loose regs to restrain it, ..

Isn't there a court case (SCOTUS) on this? (I'm referring to broad subpoenas not allowed to the press.)

Fern

 

[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.

Is there some reason you left out the Obama Administration's opposition to such a bill?

The very same legislation was introduced in 2009 by Schumer, but the Obama administration refused to support it in light of WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of government documents.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/patching_up_scandal_white_house_pushes_for_media_shield_law/

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

Is there some reason you left out the Obama Administration's opposition to such a bill?



http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/patching_up_scandal_white_house_pushes_for_media_shield_law/

Fern

The reason would be that I didn't know about it. Good catch and interesting indeed.

 

[BoberFett]

The reason would be that I didn't know about it. Good catch and interesting indeed.

This is the fundamental problem. It's politics all the way down. Republican. Democrat. It doesn't matter. The federal government is too big, too powerful, and answers to nobody. Checks and balances went out the window long ago.

 

[woolfe9998]

Isn't there a court case (SCOTUS) on this? (I'm referring to broad subpoenas not allowed to the press.)

Fern

Not that I've heard about. I recall the issue with Judith Miller during the Plame affair, trying to resist a subpoena and she was shot down by the court. I think the SCOTUS did not hear that case. If you are aware of one, please link it as I'd like to read it. I was under the impression from the analysis I've heard so far that the regs were the only restraining legal factor here.

 

[Fern]

Not that I've heard about. I recall the issue with Judith Miller during the Plame affair, trying to resist a subpoena and she was shot down by the court. I think the SCOTUS did not hear that case. If you are aware of one, please link it as I'd like to read it. I was under the impression from the analysis I've heard so far that the regs were the only restraining legal factor here.

Well, unfortunately I heard something about this discussed on a TV news show. I can't even remember which one.

I've had little luck searching. There's so much about the current controversy that it pollutes the search.

However, I did find this tidbit that suggests court cases, including the SCOTUS:

The Justice Department guidelines have served as a shadow federal shield law for three decades. They are sensible, rigorous, and predictable. Courts have routinely embraced them, even in situations where they are arguably inapplicable or unenforceable. The Supreme Court has stated that the guidelines render a shield law rooted in the Constitution superfluous in the cases in which it is available. All of the foregoing considerations suggest that the Justice Department should be commended for bearing the self-imposed burdens presented by the regulations, that courts should continue to enforce them liberally, and that Congress might consider them a model for a true federal shield law statute.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/explainer-on-the-ap-subpoenas-controversy/

If the DoJ guidelines are "superfluous" then there must be some case law (or perhaps even federal law) that render them so.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

Well, unfortunately I heard something about this discussed on a TV news show. I can't even remember which one.

I've had little luck searching. There's so much about the current controversy that it pollutes the search.

However, I did find this tidbit that suggests court cases, including the SCOTUS:


http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/explainer-on-the-ap-subpoenas-controversy/

If the DoJ guidelines are "superfluous" then there must be some case law (or perhaps even federal law) that render them so.

Fern

Setting aside which cases there are, your clip actually says the DoJ guidelines render a shield law superfluous, presumably because they already say what any shield law would say. They don't say the guidelines themselves are superfluous.

I haven't read the court opinion(s) but I have to disagree. While the shield law is very close in wording to the existing regs, the key difference is that the shield law requires prior court review of the subpoena. Subsequent court review is well and good but if the regs were violated the damage has already been done.

 

[Fern]

Ahh, yes. I misread it.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is there some reason you left out the Obama Administration's opposition to such a bill?



http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/patching_up_scandal_white_house_pushes_for_media_shield_law/

Fern

Where is the outrage? LOL.

 

[OutHouse]

Well sorry, but you're dead wrong. And your reasons for wanting it out of the discussion are clear. You're a partisan child, and you're butt-hurt because it distracts from your glorious moment of blaming Obama. Ah, sorry that your precious GOP doesn't have totally clean hands either. Better luck next time.

Im a partisan hack?? lol lol lol

wrong is wrong. i dont give a fuck what party letter is after a guys name. I will flame a a republican just as fast as i will a democrat.

 

[boomerang]

How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press

Everyone should read this.