The AP scandal *is* serious

[nadinbrzezinski]

The question will be how much did the WH know? We do need a shield law, like the one actually pushed by Senator Obama in 2007? YES. But listening to now two experts in two different shows...this is a real scandal unlike Benghazi and even IRS...this is the real scandal folks.

Does it rise to the I word? I don't think so, but count on Issa and crew to push all three.

[Buzz Clik]

1. just stop.

This is going nowhere.

[otohara]

5. Hair On Fire

or popcorn?

I look forward to learning more about "social welfare" and Glenn Beck....and Greenpeace and the IRS!

[Buzz Clik]

19. Next week -- another conjured scandal. And we'll be here!

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Why should I?

Once again, does it rise to the I word? Nope. Is it a scandal? Yes.

Will Issa and crew try to get impeachment out of this? It's a gift.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Ok, don't stop.

Just keep sucking down all the insanity being spoon fed to you, and post it all here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. So you think Issa made all this up

And reporters are just being good stenographers? Creative speculation is that way.

[randome]

27. WTF? You think Issa is credible on anything?

Jesus Christ!

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

[Buzz Clik]

36. Seriously? We're in Phase IV of Benghazi, and you're asking if he's capable?

How about you just wait.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. So when Holder recused himself

He made it up? And DOJ just told Chairman Issa how do we hand you the scandal? Creative speculation is over there ------->

[DevonRex]

64. LOL!! It's a GOOD thing Holder recused himself. Don't you GET IT???

[jeff47]

95. Holder explained why he had recused himself.

Why, exactly, do you think he did?

[Puzzledtraveller]

158. The statists are in denial

It's been a bad week for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. It's been a bad week

That s a fact

[sabrina 1]

163. Stop talking about the 1st Amendment? Really?

How sad. Don't expect Democrats to follow your instructions. You will be very disappointed. Democrats are about ISSUES unlike Republicans which is why we ARE Democrats.

[uppityperson]

2. I found an interesting take on it, thought you might be interested. I don't know if it is serious

or just distraction. Need to go read more.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-scandal-proves-ap-260/

The White House has denied having any prior knowledge of the Justice Department’s criminal probe of the Associated Press, but lawmakers appalled by the revelation are nonetheless lashing out at United States President Barack Obama.

Just hours after the AP reported on Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors employed by the news agency, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP.”

"We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department,” said Carney. “Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice.”

Meanwhile, US Attorney General Eric Holder defended the probe during a Tuesday afternoon press conference, but said he recused himself from the investigation because he was interviewed earlier by the FBI on the matter and didn’t want to provoke a conflict of interest.

[notadmblnd]

14. hasn't it also been reported that this investigation is a result

of the GOP congress demanding that the DOJ do something about leaks?

[MetasticTwine]

3. No, it isn't. n/t

[Rex]

4. Not if the DOJ followed the law.

I was dreading this would be an illegal wiretapping case, but it turns out they followed the law. So what am I missing then?

[JaneyVee]

7. I heard the DOJ did 550 interviews before resorting to subpoenas.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. The problem is short circuiting their own rules

Coming from Watergate.

Once again, not I level, yes it's a scandal, further this should not happen again, finally issa's committee will try to make this into articles of impeachment.

Oh and a few heads should roll.

Sorry, I flunked my partisan, football watching, my team is above reproach a long time ago.

[randome]

26. So whose head should roll? Tell us, please.

If Obama didn't know about this and Holder recused himself and a legitimate subpoena was obtained, who the hell's head should roll? Stop with the damned nonsense and be specific for once.

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

[Rex]

37. Maybe Nadin should go back to screaming about North Korea

and the imminent war we somehow managed to miss out on.

Reporter...meh...I guess that makes me an astronaut.

[randome]

71. If you wish really hard, all your dreams will come true!

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

[jeff47]

79. Which rule did they "short circuit"? (nt)

[randome]

8. There is no evidence the WH knew anything.

Supposition on your part is pointless. There was a subpoena. Presumably legally obtained. Absent evidence to the contrary, this is much ado about nothing.

It is NOT a scandal unless we choose to make it so.

Enough is enough.

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

[sabrina 1]

165. So you think that spying on journalists is no longer a scandal? I thought it was, at least it was

during the Bush years. And this isn't about the WH, it is about this country. It is about the 'terror laws' which we on the Left predicted would result in disaster. Which is why no Democrat ever should have voted for the Patriot Act, or any of the rest of Bush's draconian, opportunistic, oppressive 'laws'. But they did, and now we are seeing what was predicted.

The bottom line for all Democrats should be a realization that you cannot and should never 'compromise' with the far right. I hate to say 'I told you so' but we did.

The subpoena btw, was not issues apparently until AFTER the fact. A full investigation may very will backfire on Republicans. We do not know yet, but spying on reporters is wrong and to try to cover it up is reprehensible, unless we are to object to these violations ONLY when Republicans are in power, then support the same policies when they are not.

[adigal]

175. I cannot believe Democrts are pooh-poohing this!

This is possible a very serious violation of freedom of the press, and as long as a Democratic administration does it, many here don't care. To be intelligent people, we need to review actions outside the lens of politics, and if the Repubs did this, we would all be angry.

[BootinUp]

9. Serious for the leaker, yes. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. And they don't even get it

Sad, isn't it?

[DevonRex]

28. You're the one who doesn't get it, Nadin. As usual. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Of course

I am tired of your personal attacks you know. So welcome to the children's room, better known as the ignore list. You are incapable of actually discussing things like an adult.

Good bye.

[Anansi1171]

108. So that's who you are? Talk about childish. Add me to your list, please! -NT

[Floyd_Gondolli]

200. Once more

Disagreeing with her (on anything) lands you on her ignore list.

All hat, no cattle.

[aristocles]

10. Politico: D.C. turns on Obama

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dc-turns-on-obama-91386.html?hp=t1_3

[randome]

20. Like that is not a biased article. Full of suppositions and inuendo.

This gets more ridiculous by the hour.

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

[DonViejo]

11. So, if I understand you correctly, nadin...

as a reporter, you're no longer objective on this issue. That's sad.

[Rex]

17. Not the first time.

nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Lemme see, they went on a wide fishing expedition

And if you listened to both Hayes and Rachel go over the facts, I guess they are not objective either.

Alas I am not partisan, if this makes me not objective, you got me.

[DonViejo]

61. Thanks for responding, nadin. nt

[spanone]

13. it might be, but i'll hold judgement till i know the facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The facts emerging make it serious, heads should roll,

Impeachment, no, not really...it takes a lot more for that.

[LittleBlue]

16. Agreed. Nixonian or Bushian

Never something I expected to see from a Democratic administration. Watching Carl Bernstein compare it to Nixon turned my stomach.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Politicians are politicians.

[Control-Z]

38. What part turned your stomach?

That Bernstein would compare President Obama to Nixon?

Or are you saying it turns your stomach because the president is the same as Nixon and Bush?

[LittleBlue]

44. Turns my stomach

imagining how we had so much hope for change in 2008 and now this is turning Bushian. These two scandals turn my stomach.

[Control-Z]

45. How are they Bushian?

Not following.

[LittleBlue]

51. How are they not?

Not following.

I won't engage in this because I know how this conversation will go. It is too tiresome and boring.

[Control-Z]

96. Well, you sure told me, now didn't you?

Feel better?

[LittleBlue]

103. You replied to me

You sought me. Don't make it obvious when you're projecting.

[Anansi1171]

111. Wow! Circular arguments and empty assertions lacking any detail. You go, girl!

Lest in disagreeing with your thoughtful and persuasive rhetoric we put you to sleep

[LittleBlue]

112. I'm not here to make an argument for my view

Only to express my view. This argument has been done elsewhere many times. No point in doing it again. Someone else can give you the argument you want.

Continue, or don't. This is all I wanted to say.

[Quixote1818]

22. Even if Obama ordered it there won't be a paper trail

That's the way these things work. The little guy always takes the fall if something illegal was even done and it doesn't look like anything illegal was done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. For the moment I

am willing to give the WH the benefit of the doubt, and this was purely DOJ...and Holder recused himself.

Why this is not Impeachment level.

But Issa will go there...mark my words.

[KingFlorez]

29. There was a national security leak and it was investigated

Granted, not every fact is on the table on this point, but people are tripping over themselves as if the Department of Justice was seizing the records of politicians or breaking into offices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I guess since it's a fishing expedition

With the press it's A ok

[kentuck]

30. It's serious but it's legal...

Congress themselves passed the law, along with the FISA requirements. If they do not want the executive branch or the CIA or the FBI to have the power they voted to give them, then repeal the law. It may stink that the Justice Department and the FBI can listen in on your calls but it was this Congress that voted to give them the power. They can repeal the law if they don't like it...

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. When did that stop Issa?

And actually there were rules set after watergate that were violated here, not even laws.

The US has never, ever, had a media shield law

[Control-Z]

40. Are you a Constitutional/US scholar?

You seem to be up on the laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Marjorie Ciohn of he Jefferson School of Law is

Whatever...this will be painful with partisans

[Control-Z]

46. You spoke with her? (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Hayes interviewed her today

Have fun

And I might just call her.

[Control-Z]

53. Well, if you do talk to her,

let us know. Do you two know each other?

So, I'm guessing now that your OP resulted from seeing an interview with Hayes? (Chris Hayes, I'm assuming?) It's hard to tell on DU when information is coming from someone's expertise in a field - especially without a link or named source.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. The Jefferson School of Law is down the road

From where I live, and have met her in social functions.

DC politics is positively out of our beat area, but just might call her. For the record, she is a constitutional scholar, and took offense at the USPA and FISA and Guantanamo during the Bush administration.

So she is not a team player, I guess...neither am I. I admit, I prefer the facts to partisan thinking.

[pscot]

102. Don't let 'em wear you down, Nadinb

[Codeine]

76. Maybe you can call her base commander.

Another non-denial denial. perhaps?

[jeff47]

80. Which rules did they violate? (nt)

[kentuck]

35. Also, it may entail the repeal of the Patriot Act also...

in its entirety?

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Nah, this goes well before

Though you got a point, any calls left US borders, FISA comes in

[kentuck]

47. So....

Are you saying it is the call of the Attorney General and the President? Do they have to seek any legal permission from a lawyer or a judge??

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. In theory they have to talk to media

Who has a chance to take this before admin judge... FISA, you need to go before a FISA judge.

This does not need to be the AG (he recused himself) or the President.

In fact, there is an operational wall between the Executive and the DOJ in theory.

This is why this does not rise to I level, but some heads should (will probably) roll. But Issa will try to make it into articles...I can almost count on it

[kentuck]

57. Does Issa have any credibility at all?

Didn't he vote to permit this very type of rule for the Executive Branch when Bush was President? Also, didn't he vote against the money for more security for our embassies?

He doesn't have a lot of credibility, in my estimation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. He does in the *right* circles.

[Exultant Democracy]

32. Issa might just hand Obama the juice he needs to be really effective if so.

Much like Newt did for Clinton.

[DJ13]

50. I kinda think the real scandal is how far the admin goes

in suppressing leaks of any kind.

They are positively Republican in their insistence of complete control over information.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Bingo, part of it

[WillyT]

54. Yes It Is...

Funny how all these "Older Democrats" do not get that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. It's not democrats

It's partisans.

This does not rise, and I don't think it will, to impeachment level...but it is a scandal. They need to look at how they get the damage to a minimum, and get ahead of the story.

[ProSense]

55. What

"The question will be how much did the WH know? We do need a shield law, like the one actually pushed by Senator Obama in 2007? YES. But listening to now two experts in two different shows...this is a real scandal unlike Benghazi and even IRS...this is the real scandal folks. "

...exactly is the "real scandal"? Sure there is outrage, and the news organizations are protecting their turf. The civil liberties groups are pushing their case against excesses and making the case for additional laws.

IOW, there are a lot of cries about overreach, but the DOJ actions were legal. After the initial report, there were questions about Holder's involvement, and it's now known that he recused himself from the case and was interviewed as part of the investigation.

From the initial AP report:

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department might have taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=183700073

That doesn't tell us much. It simply states the rules without any insights about the actual subpoena.

Now the letters with each side reiterating its position.

DOJ Defends Subpoenas To AP: We’re Enforcing The Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022842962

AP Ain't Done...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022844489

Other than that, the investigation that sparked the DOJ action is still ongoing.

Leaks could sink Obama Whitehouse (2012)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022843810

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. My dear, it's overreach from the post watergate

Rules put in place.

Have a good one.

[ProSense]

67. WTF?

"My dear, it's overreach from the post watergate

Rules put in place."

Watergate was a crime. This is a legal matter, subpoenaes issued and information being discussed.

The false equivalencies are becoming as bizarre as Republicans'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022833749

Maybe not quite, but seriously, comparing this to Watergate is beyond silly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. You need to learn to read,

Once again carefully. It s an over reach from the rules put in place after the attacks on the Press after Watergate. If you cared to actually find out this shit you could.

Those rules were designed to avoid the kind of over reach and yes, spying, seen under that horrific era.

For the momemt none is saying it is to the level of watergate. You chose to understand that. It is a scandal though, and the WH better figure out pretty damn fast how to get ahead of the story. If they do not, a few people on the Government Oversight Committee will pretty much figure out a way to get Impeachment not, to because it raises to that level, but because they are salivating for it

I understand, this is actually dealing with facts, not partisan thinking.

So please, MORE LINKS PLEASE.

[ProSense]

134. This

"Once again carefully. It s an over reach from the rules put in place after the attacks on the Press after Watergate. If you cared to actually find out this shit you could."

...is beyond silly. What is it about the difference between legal and illegal don't you understand? Watergate was a crime.

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/

Michael Isikoff: Holder interviewed in DOJ investigation
Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022842030

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. I expected no less from you

If this happened in 2008, before November, you'd be screaming for Bush's head though. Consistent, that I gotta give you. And I will be clear, I have deep scorn for partisans on both sides.

[jeff47]

81. Which rule did they violate? (nt)

[maddezmom]

159. I don't think you are ever going to get an answer

Because the OP doesn't have one.

[Anansi1171]

114. Why the condescending tone and arrogant tone? Your "dear" at least takes the time

and effort to quote sources to substantiate what's said. I know it plays well with what is obviously a clique of sorts that you and the other non-partisan pontificates have here on DU. I guess you pull from the repetition and rote school of journalism where writing It is a scandal in bold text will undoubtedly convince the reader that it is so. But educate me as to what these post watergate rules are and how the DOJ overreached them - rather than just saying so. I have yet to see the AP, CNN, or even Rachel do so.

And whether or not you care to do that, maybe you can have a good one too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Ah I love partisans

Go read something you might not like.


http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records

[Brickbat]

58. Nadin has spoken: IT IS A SCANDAL.

[DevonRex]

63. LOL!! She thinks Holder HAD to recuse himself so he must've done something BAAAAD.

Go up and read her comments about that. I'm dying laughing

[Whisp]

72. I feel guilty but laughing my ass off too.

ouch.

[DevonRex]

85. I stopped feeling guilty

the last time she acted condescending to us "Americans."

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Why anyone would trust nadin as a "reporter" is beyond me. Do you remember.....

when she "reported" in the early days of the Syria conflict, that some Occupy soldier acquaintance of hers had been killed in that conflict, and that American forces were on the ground in Syria? Turns out the dude was alive & well, and nowhere near Syria. She made the whole thing up, based on a facebook post. After hundreds of replies, and having her journalistic credibility called into serious question, she cleverly went back and self-deleted all her posts. My computer had a hard time even opening the thread because it was so reply heavy. You would think that would've embarrassed her enough that she would refrain from this kind of alarmist b.s., but alas.

[Brickbat]

129. Yes, I remember that.

It was an outstanding example of the pitfalls of citizen journalism and what happens when people who think they know what they're doing try to cover something bigger than a press conference. If a reporter had ever come to me with a song and dance about "non-denial denials" and Facebook posts as primary evidence, I would have laughed them out of the newsroom.

[SidDithers]

132. Yup. Jay Polk...

Can't self-delete the whole Internet, tho.

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/8423

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

181. Sid, you scamp! I needed that.

[JustAnotherGen]

205. So she's a fraud?

[Tarheel_Dem]

211. Exactly. It's a matter of integrity, journalistic or otherwise. You don't disappear your mistakes,

you humbly own up to them, but like I said, you have to have a certain integrity. The best "journalists" get it wrong sometimes, the good ones admit it, and the hacks try to pretend it never happened. Thank Jeebus for the DU's researchers.

[DirkGently]

65. Yes, it is. Fascinating the frantic pushback you're getting here.

You can't just start tapping journalists' phones. There's a Constitutional Amendment. There is case law. The attacks on whistleblowers and the press are not Benghazi bullshit. It's more Bush-style, wildly bad-faith legal interpretation, and it's long past going too far.

[yodermon]

73. wasn't wiretaps. Just phone records (metadata). key distinction. n/t

[DirkGently]

74. You're right. But it doesn't dilute the crime much at all.

Phone calls or phone records, the government cannot scoop up broad swaths of private communications information on the press on the premise that there was a leak somewhere.

The people poo-poohing the OP here are full of shit.

[jeff47]

82. Actually, they can. If you want them to not be able to, you'll need a change in the law. (nt)

[DirkGently]

87. By all means, cite the law & apply it to these facts.

Good luck not sounding ridiculous.

[jeff47]

90. You're the one claiming they broke the law. So which law did they break?

The law allows them to subpoena phone records. Secretly. They did so.

Don't like it? Well then that would require changing the law, wouldn't it?

Btw, they aren't actually going after the AP - they're protected by the first amendment. It only takes a brain cell or two to figure out they wanted the phone records to find the leaker. Who was leaking in order to make it harder to stop terrorist attacks. I don't have much sympathy for him or her. But it's the leaker who waived their first amendment rights in order to get their security clearance.

[DirkGently]

99. Just tell me which "law? I "need to change." Surely you know.

That's what your post said. But you don't know what law, or what it says?

You think there is a law that says you can simply subpoena phone records in secret, PERIOD?

You're kidding, right? And you're talking about how many brain cells people have?

I'm thinking of the First Amendment here. You know, the one a "brain cell or two" will tell you protects the freedom of the press.

I'm aware there are limited powers to subpoena phone records to find a leak. I'm not aware of anything that permits wholesale, long-term, spying on the press.

If you are, let's hear it. If you're not, what the hell are you talking about?

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.

There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.

That the Department undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation, is particularly troubling.

The sheer volume of records obtained, most of which can have no plausible connection to any ongoing investigation, indicates, at a minimum, that this effort did not comply with 28 C.F.R. §50.10 and should therefore never have been undertaken in the first place. The regulations require that, in all cases and without exception, a subpoena for a reporter's telephone toll records must be "as narrowly drawn as possible.'' This plainly did not happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/13/doj-seizes-ap-phone-records/2156819/

[randome]

86. So what would you say is 'not broad'? Two lines at a time? Two reporters at a time?

AP probably has more than a hundred phone lines in their headquarters. And you think obtaining records from the phone companies on 20 lines is overly broad?

That's a debatable point, I'll give you that. But it's not a cut-and-dried number.

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

[DirkGently]

94. It's early yet. But it already smells like Bush-era bullshit.

This is what we screamed about when Bush was in office. There's a law or a Constitutional principle in place, that has never supported the action in question, and then someone decides that it can be interpreted in wild new ways, to empower themselves or silence a critic.

The administration already has a bad record of pursuing news leaks as espionage. Now it is, at the very least, chilling the press by claiming the right to monitor broad swaths of communications records.

Holder's office is a mess. The silliness about the policy of applying the "public safety exception" to Miranda to every terror case is another example of bad-faith legal interpretation -- in that case, apparently just to claim exceptional power and to sound tough.

I don't know if Obama is encouraging these policies, or if he simply doesn't care about reeling them in, but what's emerging is highly disturbing and un-Democrat-like desire to silence critics and frustrate transparency, which was supposed to be a core principle of the administration.

[emulatorloo]

113. They legally subpoenaed the records. That's not a "crime"

[Lady Freedom Returns]

118. They did it wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/doj2_05-14.html

DAVID SCHULZ: But one of the key points here is, Judy, is if they had followed the procedures and notified the AP ahead of time, AP would have had the opportunity to ask a judge to review the situation and determine whether it really satisfied the criteria. And that's an important safeguard that was just short-circuited here. It was a unilateral action.

[demwing]

123. Your PBS link provided no specifics

Just the opinion of the AP's attorney. Of course he's going to defend his client--that's what he gets paid for.

All I'm hearing here is that a "rule" was not followed, but that the law was not broken. A rule that does not carry the weight of the law is similar to the "Pirate's Code" (it's more a set of guidelines).

Also, the attorney claims that the subpoena was too broad. Is there a official standard for what constitutes "broad" and "narrow"? If so, apply the standard and see. If not, then what are we really talking about here?

[emulatorloo]

162. Worth searching MediaMatters on the Associated Press. Wouldnt take AP "SPIN" at face value.

Their political coverage is full of right wing editorializing, has been since the days of Ron Fournier. They constantly promote Republican talking points and aid in GOP disinformation campaigns.

I would take anything AP representatives say with a HUGE boulder of salt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Yes, they are a RW outfit regarding high order politics

The DOJ still broke their own rules coming from the Church Committee... Two wrongs and all that.

[woo me with science]

66. I am hoping against hope that this violation of the press

will outrage citizens and the media enough to spark long overdue outrage over ALL the egregious and metastasizing violations of our privacy and fundamental civil protections we have endured under Bush and now Obama. We desperately need to be talking about the surveillance state as it applies to private citizens and political groups like Occupy. We need to be talking about the Patriot Act.

We need to be talking about the Constitution.

Yeah, the media is purchased. We need to push, and hope against hope that some good corporate Germans will start to wake up...

[ProSense]

69. "will outrage citizens and the media enough"

LOL!

The media is already outraged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2844560

"Yeah, the media is purchased. We need to push, and hope against hope that some good corporate Germans will start to wake up..."

You've stop making sense.

[kentuck]

70. Amen on that, woo!

They need to repeal the Patriot Act because we want to keep our First Amendment as much as some others want to keep their Second Amendment...

[Anansi1171]

117. They are long dead, and you and Nadin are doing in the patsy care nothing of the coup

It's irresponsible to pretend this is in a vacuum. Partisan concerns should not be knee-jerk reactions, but neither should they be ignored. The surveillance state, Patriot Act and attacks against Occupy are symptoms.

But maybe I am wrong and maybe I should just abandon my support of this President, and allow the Right to roll him. Perhaps you all are right, and he has not earned my breath given the atrocities he's committed.

[peace13]

170. So funny how folks forget about the Patriot Act.

Who did they think it did NOT pertains to? Corps are peeps and corps own the peeps that work for them. It is all fair game. Don't get me wrong....it sucks but we have been operating under this for more than an decade. For these folks to get irate today....is insane!

It's that old thing, when they came for my neighbor I said nothing but now hey....they are coming for me and I don't like it!

[woo me with science]

183. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Many of us have been outraged about these things all along; did you not notice that my post specifically mentions Bush and the Patriot Act?

Are you seriously trying to argue that, because bootlicking, partisan Republicans did not protest when the Bush administration was doing it, that Democrats should now behave the same way?

What a disgusting argument: that because partisan Republicans tolerated it when "they came for my neighbor," that partisan Democrats should now behave in the same despicable, bootlicking way.

[ucrdem]

146. It might, and that would probably be a welcome change.

In other words provisions of the Patriot Act and FISA amendments might finally start to get a little scrutiny.

It won't hurt Obama and Holder though because they acted within the law and notified the AP so their hands are as clean as a baby's derriere.

[NCTraveler]

151. Spot on.

Edit to change it from "Spot on woo". I can see how that could be taken as condescending. Didn't want it taken that way.

[peace13]

169. If the sleeping peeps don't mind being spied on now ...

..you actually think they care about reporters. Really???? Out in the world Home Land Security pulls folks off the lake for no reason, stalks pleasure boats, circles and comes in for the kill. Where were you, where you headed, who's on board, let's see your papers, stop and we are boarding you! This is the world post *ush/ Shooter. Black SUV's circle the city. They can take you in and refuse to let anyone know they have you. Don't expect your one free call!! You are an American, BFD...they don't care! Your are a suspect!

I find if offensive that people suddenly care about surveillance. Privacy is long gone. Don't kid yourself. People are not waking up. They are too stupid to know what they had and when they lost it.

On the bright side...at least we are safe from terrorism! sarcasm

[woo me with science]

185. "I find it offensive that people suddenly care about surveillance."

I find it offensive that it took people *so long* to begin to care about surveillance.

[peace13]

194. Yes...

almost 12 years is a long time. Finally, 2013 we can stick it to a Dem when this has been going on with Congress on both sides agreeing to spy on any American they choose to. It all stinks that is for sure, it's just a hell of a time to finally wake up!

[Uzair]

68. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT

Seriously. This is wonky Washington bullshit. Media driven hyped up shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. You don't

Don't say nobody. Both hubby and I were talking about it over dinner.

Trust me, we are as far from DC as we can get

[peace13]

171. This is clearly a Patriot Act issue.

If the people cared they would have been on the line for the past twelve years. They don't understand anything but being broke and possibly homeless in the future!

When Americans let Cheney roll them the battle was lost. The people will not fight and he knew that!

No matter who did what when... they are allowed by law. We have to face the sad truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. Actually this is not a USPA issue

It goes further back to 1976 or so and the Church Committee...

[Lady Freedom Returns]

115. I care and so should you.

This kind of thing make it next to impossible for the Press to do their job to get information to you to make informed decisions.

[kudzu22]

75. It is big

Whether it was justified or not, overly broad or not, the bottom line is that DOJ and by proxy the administration has pissed off the AP, and that alone makes it a big deal. I think they feel violated and they have a big mouthpiece with which to sway public opinion. Expect this to have an impact far beyond the actual facts of the case.

[randome]

88. AP already decided to thumb their nose at the Administration when they published what they had...

...against the express request of the CIA. With no reason to do so other than to piss them off. Nothing was gained by their publication of the story. But lives may have been lost because of it. I suppose that remains to be seen.

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

[alarimer]

77. The real scandal is that it was perfectly legal

And the Republican hypocrites who would make this an issue wouldn't (and didn't) if Bush were in office.

[jeff47]

84. +Infinity

If you don't like what happened here, then you need to be pushing for a change in the law.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

78. The probles that I am seeing is that most people have not clue what this has done.

People seem not to understand what protocols that were bypassed. They jumped right over many rules that were placed in after Watergate. The Government messed up and now they do have info that they should not have.

They have hurt the already fragile standing reports have ( Thank you Sales Departments) with people that are willing to be whistle blowers.

[jeff47]

83. Which rules did they bypass? (nt)

[Lady Freedom Returns]

100. David Schulz explains it the best in his interveiw with "NEWSHOUR"

Read and see more @ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/doj2_05-14.html

And if that's the case, there are things that can be done. We have had a sad experience with this. It grew out of the Watergate era. And there are regulations in place that were put in to rein in the excesses of the Justice Department in going after reporters in the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era.

And there are a number of those things in those regs. One is that the attorney general is supposed to personally sign off on a subpoena before it's issued. But, more importantly, before a subpoena goes out for this sort of information, they're supposed to be able to verify that the information is critical to a successful investigation and that it's not available from any alternative source, and then they have an obligation to be sure that it's narrowly drawn.

And we would like an explanation from the Justice Department of what they did to assure themselves that they couldn't get what they needed from other sources and how they can justify this terribly broad subpoena as narrowly drawn.

And there's one other safeguard that I just want to mention, because I think it's important. The way the regulations are written, when the Justice Department wants this information, this type of information, they're supposed to come to the press first and tell them what they want and negotiate so that they can narrow it and get what they need.

[demwing]

124. And do these rules carry the weight of law?

If not then they aren't really rules, they're courtesies...

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Exactly

Protocols put in place due to those abuses.

We really need legislation.

[CatWoman]

89. give me a fucking break

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. I will give you one, two and three...

Serious protocols were violated

[FarCenter]

91. Subpoenaing business records is a standard criminal procedure

Since someone had leaked classified information to the reporters, they subpoenaed the business records of the telephone companies for the billing records that would show who the reporters had been in contact with.

They did not gain access to any information that only the reporters had, and they complied with the law.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

101. It is different for doing this with a news agency.

This interview will give you a better understanding of the big "no no" they did.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/doj2_05-14.html

[FarCenter]

186. What part of 28 CFR 50.10 do you believe was not followed?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/50.10

[Kolesar]

189. Ooops, she scattered!

Probably over on some other forum being similarly dry and omniscient

[MannyGoldstein]

93. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be mighty proud.

Of you, Will Pitt, and the other folks who think a free press is a good idea.

Of elected officials? Not so much.

[ProSense]

97. And

"I think that Thomas Jefferson would be mighty proud. Of you, Will Pitt, and the other folks who think a free press is a good idea."

...Reince Priebus?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845073

[MannyGoldstein]

98. I'd like to think that Jefferson would examine motives.

I suspect he'd still projectile-vomit at the thought of Priebus.

[MjolnirTime]

105. You don't even know what you're talking about.

You've read a few articles on the story and you think you know what happened.

Wait and you'll see that you don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Thank you... I guess partisans are hoping such

[Lady Freedom Returns]

116. nadinbrzezinski know a little more about the repercussions that this is causing

I take it you are not a Journalist. If your were then you know this is bad!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/doj2_05-14.html

DAVID SCHULZ: But, bear in mind, if the government can get from the press any time it wants to information about who its sources are, pretty soon the only thing we are ever going to know about the government is what the government wants to tell us. This just really is not how things work. And it's a tremendous adverse effect on a free press.

[DevonRex]

218. I don't think

she knows anything about this whatsoever.

AP outed a CIA operative and his family while they were still with Al Qaeda. That man had foiled a bomb plot that saved the lives of Americans on an airplane in Detroit, MI. Yet AP threw him away as if he were trash.

He was a UK citizen so it caused strained relations between our countries and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, the CIA had only asked that AP delay its story by one week to get the man and his family out of Yemen safely. AP didn't even abide by that. They published a day early. For all we know the operative and his family are dead now. Because AP wanted to what? Kill them? Make us less safe? WHAT POSSIBLE GOOD REASON COULD AP HAVE HAD FOR DOING THIS?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

220. What posible reason did the Press have to tell us about Watergate?

The point is that there are regulations placed after Watergate that the DOJ totally ignored. They jumped strait to grabbing the records and that is against those regulations.

If the DOJ is allowed to do what they did, the Press will not have the "Deep Throats" come forward any more. The Press will be handcuffed and not able to get leads for stories. We will have only what the government says as news.

Luckily, President Obama has said he is more than willing to sign legislation to shield the press better from such despicable bulldozing of regulations that the DOJ did.

The DOJ did not follow procedure so they need to be taken to heel.

[DonCoquixote]

119. If O were smart

he would use this to repeal the P act, after all, the GOP will realize that a Democrat could use this on them.

But we all know Hillary will not let that happen, especially as she will be going right back to the work of Empire in 2016.

[JustAnotherGen]

121. Nadin

Here's the thing. . .

There are many Americans - myself included that are hostile to the press. We have been lied about by the press for sport (think black Americans). Lied to. We watched the press go right along with Iraq. We turned our eyes away from images of Saddam Hussein being hung - as reported by the American Press.

Since 2002/2003 I've used my foreign language skills to read foreign press. I admit - I read and watch Al Jazeera.

I'm not going to get upset until I see that they asked for the phone logs from Government officials to the foreign press.

And I fully admit - It's Partisan. Because it seems like the American press only cares because now they aren't in on the scam. Not ALL (not attacking you - there's been enough of that for you expressing an opinion) - but the vast majority of the press tells us only what sells advertising.

Not sure if I'm being clear as its early and I'm only half way through my coffee . . . But you are making a case to in some instances (mine) to people who have zero trust in the American media. IE if there was someone in the media that deliberately leaked classified information that could have put my family members on active duty in the military in a grave . . Then I want that asshole's name right out there with the DOJ.

When the press gives us the entire back story - I will bend a little.

Now - can you tell us who in the press put us at risk so the DOJ thought this would ever be a good idea?

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. This is not about the AP...it s about the First Amendment

But hey, as I told so,embody else, let's scrap the whole thing, just leave the 2nd alone.

[JustAnotherGen]

135. Okay - teasing here

With stop and frisk in Manhattan - they've already thrown out the 5th and 14th for certain citizens - my nephews, brother, uncles, etc. etc. included!


But that said - does First Amendment rights to put say - Active Duty Soldiers directly in the line of fire outweigh the Active Duty Soldier's right to life? To be able to come home from a war that was a Media Fabrication (including AP here)?


I don't know - but since you have media credentials - are you looking into the back end story?

For those of us (understand this because I think maybe you don't have family members lives on the line) who do - I want to know WHAT was leaked and by WHO. What was the risk?

The media/AP is failing to use the First Amendment to give us the full story. They say scandal - but don't give us everything we need to HELP us to understand.

To quote John Stewart on Cross Fire many years ago . . . We need YOU to help us. Help us!

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Just so you know my husband came home from the line

In 2004.

He was in the line of fire from 1984 to 2004 when he finally retired. I have also served, under fire mind you, somewhere else...so let me tell ya, you are not that special.

As to the first, you do protest right? Perhaps (I doubt it) go to city hall and address your government officials...right? Maybe even write a letter or two to your delegation, sign online petitions and physical ones too? Guess what is also protected by that amendment? There is more...You think things are bad media wise right now? Let's put it this way, there are countries around the world where Fox, yes...fox, looks like the paragon of virtue, and where posts like the one you just did will land you in a nice dank 4x4 cell...until you die.

I am not defending the AP...yes, they did play along in 2001, and for that they and the NYT and Judith Miller in particular deserve our scorn...I care about the First, which incidentally also protects your rights as a blogger...and let's not even get into established religions. Bachmann and a few others would love to make their version of Christianity the established religion Yup, that is the country I want to live in, really.

That my dear is the big picture.

But hey, you are correct, let's throw them all out, including the Third, (which incidentally is archaic as can be, since none quarters troops at home these days) cause we all know we really need no protections as citizens. While we are at it, let's throw the whole constitution and dispense with it, archaic I tell ya. Just keep the second around, to fight the real tyranny you are wishing.

The old saying applies here, be careful what you wish for.

As I said, the AP is the real scandal. Does it rise to impeachment? No...but it's a scandal nonetheless.

[Whisp]

223. ''so let me tell ya, you are not that special.'''...

that is so fucking Rude and mean.

There have been all kinds of fights here on DU between posters but I have to hand it to you that you are one of the dirtiest and most ignorant.

[peace13]

173. Suddenly it hits home?

Why the big wake up call. It is a sad day when we realize that as Americans we have no rights. Today was your day for the message to hit home. I have been living it since the day the Patriot Act was passed. You had a few more glorious years I guess.

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. You know this how?

You know why the State of Hawaii passed a law where they refused to enforce the USPA and George had to suffer demonstrators in the streets in 2003 no less? I spent three hours with a Hawaii rep, for the State House, at a local Starbucks going over the enabling act, yup, called it that way no less. That was two weeks after it was passed...we had fun, and he took home a copy in a cd rom.

Then he passed copies and they had real discussions and shit over it, and the State Attorney had to advise them. And then the other countless hours speaking about this with the staff of Congressman Abercrombie, right now the Governor, and more with Both Senator Akaka and Inouye (rip)

Oh I remember the Feds having a real cow when Honolulu PD refused, I tell ya, to remove those demonstrators into free speech zones. It was like top of the nooz locally.

So you know what they say about making assumptions right?

So what have you actively done dear?

[peace13]

198. Actually for the last eight years I have witnessed HLS in motion.

We live in an area where they roam. Try being interrogated every weekend about your comings and goings. Not fun. Show your papers on a Sunday afternoon and feel the joy!

While I do not have a career in journalism I am an active citizen. I take a stand locally, held local peace vigils two times a week for eight years, travel to DC for marches, hosted campaign personal for nine month stretches in my home multiple times, held a memorial to the US soldiers who died in Iraq in my yard for five years, for a period of time called every congress critter when important issues came up, including the dear Patriot Act. Nothing like you of course but on the average I am involved. You've got some years on me so give me some time.

Over the past three years I have been the soul caregiver for my terminally ill sister so my time has been a bit limited in the political arena. Some day I will have more time to carry the water that so many others let run.Thank you for asking!

[nadinbrzezinski]

207. But you assumed it hit home just now

Which was my point. It hit home about one third of first reading of the USPA...and that was a while ago.

This is where assumptions and famous saying come in.

And we all should be careful of making them.

As to being interrogated and all that...I have assumed, for years mind you, and correctly...that my line was taped.

And since we are having ths conversation....fuck Hoover

[peace13]

216. Think what you will.

Even perfect people assume sometimes...wouldn't ya say?

[nadinbrzezinski]

217. I try hard not to

not always do well, but try to

[JDPriestly]

122. Actually, it is an interesting legal question.

On the one hand you have the First Amendment and freedom of the press. But on the other, you have Supreme Court decisions holding that subpoenaing just phone numbers, locations of calls and other information that the phone user allows the telephone company, a third party to have, is OK.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

I have heard conflicting stories about the AP records, but if they were just the basic records the phone company has, it will be interesting to see whether the First Amendment protects them. Hard to say in my opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. It is, all they violated were the protocols

To avoid standards set after watergate.

Also the admin has one nasty streak on whistleblowers.

Regardless this is a gift to Issa. This does not impeachment make, not yet...just watch...those are coming down the pike. This is not watergate...but Issa and crew will make it so.

[Kolesar]

128. this a leaker trying to damage the Presidency, not a **whistleblower*** *** *** ** *

[maddezmom]

130. Agreed. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Yup, I knew this was coming

If this was 2008 or earlier...

[CJCRANE]

168. The Plame leaker was not a whistleblower either.

Not all leakers are whistleblowers.

[Kolesar]

187. At least I write in complete sentences

...to express my thoughts clearly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Ah now the infantile grammar attack.

Hey, next will be spelling.

Predictable.

Good bye

[Kolesar]

190. Yeah, goodbye

Have fun doing what gives you meaning in life

[rightsideout]

127. It's the Republican's fault

They are the ones who demanded an inquiry into the leaks on the investigation into the terrorist plots. The Justice Department apparently had narrowed the leaks down.

This is what happens when you cower to the Republican's demands. It's like helping someone who will end up stabbing you in the back.

[reformist2]

131. I agree 100% - Benghazi is a sideshow. The AP scandal is very worrisome.

[Politicub]

133. Joe Scarborough, is that you?

Nothing that happened would have been protected by a shield law. Remember - this information wasn't wantonly gathered.

The system of justice worked. A judge approved the subpoena of records.

I guess my philosophical difference with you is that the scales have been removed from my eyes about the press being somehow pure and sacrosanct.

The press decides when they want to fancy themselves as stenographers or investigative reporters. During the run up to the Iraq war, the media was complicit in selling the public on the war. They dutifully reported whatever the GOP spoon fed to them.

Investigative reporting should be encouraged. Gotcha and stenographer reporting only weakens the credibility of journalists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Read 137, I ain't gonna rewrite it

And given i work as a reporter I know far better than you just how non pure the media can be. (And also how our lovely leaders avoid it...nothing funnier than watching a US congressman break speed records to get away from press). I swear, I was going to go all fluffy since I need to get this particular one at ease before playing hardball.

[ProSense]

142. I read it, and

here is the real big picture, the complicit corporate media:

Why wasn't everyone who is outraged now outraged at the launch of the leak investigation?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846070

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. I expect no less from you, but blue links

And support no matter what.

[ProSense]

144. Sort of ironic

"I expect no less from you, but blue links"

...that someone so condescending resorts to "blue links" as a response.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. Yup...but I ain't no partisan either

[ProSense]

154. Did you ever

"Yup...but I ain't no partisan either"

...post about this when it was reported: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846263

Still, no one accused you of being "partisan," I said the claim that this was similar to Watergate is silly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2845950

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. You still need to learn to read

I never said it was like watergate. What I said, for the dim witted, is that this violated protocols put in place AFTER WATERGATE, POST WATERGATE.

Can you read? Or you need it louder?

This is a garden variety second term scandal, NOT WATERGATE.

You really need to adjust those rose colored glasses.

Now will Issa try to make this into Watergate and finally get revenge for Nixon? You betcha. He is also a partisan hack, much worst than you, and has access to the tools to do it.

[ProSense]

161. No,

"This is a garden variety second term scandal, NOT WATERGATE."

...it's absurd to call concerns about this a "scandal."

This is a "garden variety" outrage fest being hyped as a "scandal."

I mean, the hypocrisy around this is astonishing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846070

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. I expect no less from partisans

Go ahead, alert me.

I think it is long past time to put you in the ignore list. Only reason I have not is that sometimes you do provide useful links...but serious, this blind partisan defense is tiresome, really tiresome.

Good bye

[ProSense]

167. "I think it is long past time to put you in the ignore list."

You aren't afraid of "partisans," you're afraid of people who disagree with you.

[Politicub]

172. The ethical dilemma of the AP reporting about itself

There's the media and external perception the institution has created, which often sullies or stands in conflict with the reputation of the thousands of journalists who live up to the role that the press should have in society.

Is it good or bad that the AP is trying to push the story so that it to benefits themselves? From an ethics perspective, I don't believe a media outlet should be the utmost authority on a story where it plays a part, and a complex, self-contradictory one at that.

So this begs the question: should the media circle the wagons around one of its own, or cast a critical eye toward the AP as a business with a profit and loss motive? If the wagon circling continues, then the media as an institution is not doing its job.

As an aside, you know nothing about me, so don't judge on how much I know or don't know about the media. Let's debate the merits of the role of the media covering this story objectively without advocating a position in the absence of all of the facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. But you made assumptions about me

Which I love.

Have an excellent life in my ignore list

For the record, you raise good questions, but the personal attacks are also fascinating.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

201. You work as a reporter?

Wowzers, I never heard that before.

[MineralMan]

136. The "I word?"

Informed?
Information?
Introspection?

I suppose you're right. I doesn't rise to the "I word."

[DCBob]

141. Is the Justice Dept not allowed to pursue criminal activity??

I think they are. The question is did they go too far. Nobody knows that yet... so nobody knows if this *is* serious.

[ucrdem]

145. So far there's no sign of a cover up, and that's what sank Nixon,

so unless it turns out Holder or Obama has been lying to conceal some activity, I don't see any particular problem except a perceptual one.

And if the perception is that the law needs to be changed, it probably will be, and that will probably be a good thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. Why I said it's not impeachment level

Not even close.

It's a garden variety second term scandal... Will Issa and crew try to make it into what it is not? You betcha.

Now lying the country to war was, but democrats believe in looking ahead and stuff.

[ucrdem]

149. If Issa gets behind a shield law that would be one thing

but unless he does, or shows any other commitment to press freedom, I don't see how this will get any traction.

And if Holder starts issuing indictments team GOP might have to start playing defense so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. 2007 he had his chance

When a certain first term senator was behind it

[ucrdem]

152. He might get another soon,

but it won't come from his party, so he'll probably vote against it. But by that time there will be another scandal to fulminate about...

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. The funny thing is of all three

This is the one that raises to scandal level...the IRS one...if it's as low level as it looks meh, and Benghazi ain't a scandal, more like a fixation.

[LeftInTX]

203. From a journalistic standpoint, this is a scandel, but from a "political" standpoint..

it may not be much of anything.

The Neocons are still running the country. They support Obama on foreign drone strikes.

However, since it involves the press, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I hope some good comes of it.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/15/18273984-why-the-gop-is-taking-a-pass-on-an-obama-admin-scandal?lite

Really? Cornyn has never seen any need to "wait and see how this plays out" with other stories related to the Obama administration, and McCain loves rushing to judgment without knowing all the facts. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) condemned administration scandals yesterday, but didn't mention the AP subpoenas, and neither House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nor House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have commented on the AP story directly. Update: Even Ted Cruz doesn't seem to care.

So what's going on here? There's one compelling explanation.

We could argue that freedom of the press isn't exactly a top Republican priority, so they aren't inclined to reflexively leap to the AP's defense in this story, but I think there's more to it than that.

In this case, Republicans appear to be largely taking a pass because they wanted this investigation and very likely approve of the Justice Department's aggressiveness.

Related article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/senate-republicans-not-yet-sweating-doj-seizing-ap-phone-rec

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. It involves the First Amendment

I am amused, people go over like nuts when we talk second, first...meh!

[EV_Ares]

155. I agree, just stop as the other poster said, already there is info coming out on this of who, why

this was done & the actual fact, nothing illegal was done, was done according to the law.

Yes, if it was true, serious but it is not & this as the IRS as Benghazi we will find out was a bunch of hysterical media who thought they had something to get all excited about. Any accusations like this you take seriously but even throwing out the impeachment word is a little premature.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. Why I sad it don't raise to that level

But mark my words, Issa will go there.

[peace13]

166. Can you spell Patriot Act?

Seriously, the rest of us have had a micros pope up the ass for twelve years now! Come with me for a weekend and I will introduce you to Homeland Security and it's invasion on the American people. It is sad, very sad ...but you can't cherry pick this thing. If the feds are dancing on the heads of the people they can certainly inspect the anus of industry every so often!

[nadinbrzezinski]

178. Worth repeating, about assumptions that is

nadinbrzezinski (119,880 posts)
176. You know this how?

You know why the State of Hawaii passed a law where they refused to enforce the USPA and George had to suffer demonstrators in the streets in 2003 no less? I spent three hours with a Hawaii rep, for the State House, at a local Starbucks going over the enabling act, yup, called it that way no less. That was two weeks after it was passed...we had fun, and he took home a copy in a cd rom.

Then he passed copies and they had real discussions and shit over it, and the State Attorney had to advise them. And then the other countless hours speaking about this with the staff of Congressman Abercrombie, right now the Governor, and more with Both Senator Akaka and Inouye (rip)

Oh I remember the Feds having a real cow when Honolulu PD refused, I tell ya, to remove those demonstrators into free speech zones. It was like top of the nooz locally.

So you know what they say about making assumptions right?

So what have you actively done dear?

[peace13]

192. Hmmmm

I actually do contribute actively, time and money. I am sorry that you are having a hard time with this and enjoyed your synopsis of HI.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. I had something to do with it

As in actively

You made some ugly assumptions there, and keep making them I see.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

174. This is all part and parcel of their --

of their extremist respond to whistleblowers. Spying on news orgs -- positively Nixonian. I agree, this is the real scandal, though I don't believe this is one the GOPers will run with. Not "sexy" enough. They will continue to beat the dead Benghazi horse and the IRS issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. Actually I hope you are right

On which (dead) horse they try to beat up.

The other two are easy...peachy to understand. This one, not so much.

[Whisp]

184. what the AP scandal really is...

is how they collectively licked Bush ass on the Iraq war, with smacking lips. rah rah rah.

[Kolesar]

191. You can delete this original post

...and essentially prevent further refutations that will embarrass you.

[Puzzledtraveller]

197. Why would Nadin be embarassed?

[msanthrope]

199. Because she has no understanding of how a grand jury works, and it's painful to read so

ill-informed 'reportage.'

[msanthrope]

196. The grand jury wasn't allowed to subpeona reporter's phone records? What fool thinks that?

Nadin--as an investigative reporter, why aren't you digging into who, and what else got requested by this grand jury?

[dballance]

202. Oh Please. As if this will rise to any new heights.

Try to remember the GOP congress persons are just as complicit in this as any Democrat. They most certainly voted for the laws that are in place now and the laws that were not broken. So it would be hard to try to prosecute someone who hasn't broken the law. Not that that the Republicans wouldn't give it their best shot.

[dballance]

204. How can anyone possibly take you seriously?

It was only a few weeks ago when you were sounding the alarm about N. Korea and how an attack was imminent on an almost daily basis. It never happened. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

Before you want to start proclaiming a scandal at least try to find some laws that were broken first.

There is a story I recall from my childhood about the little boy who cried wolf. Maybe you should read it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

210. I was not saying an attack was imminent

Posting the stories as posted by the world press, who agreed this was the most serious crisis. Now if in your mind that means attack was imminent, I suppose it was. But like Prosense, I have little patience any longer with people who can't comprehend what they read.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Goodbye.

[Corruption Inc]

206. I agree, but not for the reasons most people either agree or disagree

I see a corrupt Justice Department committing crimes against a corrupt press for not following corrupted orders. I don't think any of the parties involved are innocent.

As they are both corrupt, along with the majority of other regulators, law makers and enforcement agencies, I don't see anything occurring because of this one particular corrupt action.

It is very serious because it shows just how corrupt our country is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. And that is a critical point

And actually, apparently, this also comes from getting our special ally's in a twitter...as in the Brits (who have no shield laws and will go after any reporter who dares even go there) got miffed over the AP going there.

Just adding that for fun

[KamaAina]

212. Doesn't a judge or grand jury have to approve a subpoena?

The repuke poutrage should be directed there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. The problem is that the procedures put in place

By the Church committee were not followed.

They also had to let the reporters know, so they could appeal if needed, and it had to be narrow.

From the facts so far, this was a fishing expedition, an old fashioned one. It was wider than actual targets and the protocols were not followed.

On bright side, holder recused himself and the wall between DOJ and WH seems to be in place.

It's a scandal, just not Impeachment level

[KamaAina]

214. Get this: DOJ's actions were prompted by pressure from repukes!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-doj-leaks_n_3268932.html

It was later revealed that the "would-be bomber" was actually a U.S. spy planted in the Yemen-based group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. On May 18, U.S. and allied officials suggested to Reuters that the leak to the AP had forced the end of an "operation which they hoped could have continued for weeks or longer."

In the months since those revelations, the Justice Department pushed hard to uncover the source of the leak, driven in part by demands from Republican lawmakers it had endangered national security. The DOJ's campaign was heavily criticized by members of the media, who warned that it would have a chilling effect on the source-reporter relationship, and by civil liberties groups, who viewed it as an infringement on First Amendment rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

215. There is another source

The British. There is no protection for journos working on this shit in the UK...they were miffed.

No, this is not a simple story, yes, it's a scandal, the garden variety term two scandal...which the WH might be getting a handle on. See shield law...

[Tarheel_Dem]

221. Not only that, did you see this? Nadin's gonna be pissed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014485406#post29

[Taverner]

219. Yes it is. Fire Holder.

Fire him.

Make him spend time with family...

Get him the fuck out of the AG office and back to the neocon cranks that he is obviously a part of.

[limpyhobbler]

222. serious like a heart attack.

Gov't: quit spying on everyone all the time. Jeez. nt