Bomb Plot Briefing May Undercut DOJ's Case For AP Records Seizure - MSNBC

[WillyT]

Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure
By Michael Isikoff - National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
5/1/13

<snip>

A massive Justice Department investigation into the disclosure by the Associated Press of an ongoing covert operation against an al Qaeda suicide cell in Yemen -- a probe that included a sweeping secret subpoena of the press association’s phone records -- has been justified by U.S. officials on the grounds that the news organization “put the American people at risk.”

But that assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder could be undermined by the White House’s decision to publicly comment about the operation at the time and reveal details beyond those in the original AP story, according to legal experts and counterterrorism officials.

Within hours after the AP published its May 7, 2012 story, then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, currently the director of the CIA, held a background conference call in which he assured television network commentators that the bomb plot was never a threat to the American public or aviation safety.

The reason, he said, is because intelligence officials had “inside control” over it.

He later told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he conducted the briefing to avoid “dangerous questions and speculation” about the operation.

Brennan’s account came after the AP reported what it called “an intelligence victory for the United States,” saying intelligence officials had thwarted an “ambitious plot” by an al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen “to destroy a U.S. bound airliner” using a refined underwear bomb.

U.S. officials say that, when they were first contacted by the AP...

<snip>

More: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18280953-bomb-plot-briefing-may-undercut-dojs-case-for-ap-records-seizure?lite

[graham4anything]

1. 4 paragraphs only- the above is 7

[randome]

2. If the cat was already out of the bag, how could it be put back in? This is nonsense.

Doesn't even make sense. Either the AP obtained classified information from a leaker or not. A briefing held after their publication has no relevance on that question.

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

[uponit7771]

7. +1

[Anansi1171]

3. Sorry WillyT..you are persistent, but I call bull-shit!

The fact that the agency handlers had control of the operation and the device does not mean that the Leak was not itself illegal, threatened placed sources, future intelligence or vital interest(if not lives). Besides, you and this reporter fail to provide the context that clearly this was an intelligence win(as opposed to say the Boston Bombings) while the AP was editorially bending over backwards to both preempt its announcement and cast it in a negative light in the same breath.

So this may undercut the DOJ's case just as the sun may fry us to a crisp by day's end.

[CJCRANE]

4. "Within hours *after* the AP published its May 7, 2012 story..."

Looks like the AP forced Brennan's hand because the briefing came *after* the story was published.

[Ikonoklast]

5. Isikoff didn't even read what he wrote.

Brennan’s account came after the AP reported what it called “an intelligence victory for the United States,” saying intelligence officials had thwarted an “ambitious plot” by an al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen “to destroy a U.S. bound airliner” using a refined underwear bomb.

AFTER.
AFTER.
AFTER.


Good grief.


Willy, you are jumping the shark while riding Michael Isikoff.

[leveymg]

6. The original AP story was sparce on details re the double-agent. Those were provided later by WaPo &

NYT. The original AP story is linked.

The fact that Brennan soon confirmed the operation was under CIA "control" and that there never was any real danger to the US does go to confirm that AP had not blown an ongoing operation, and that no lives were endangered by printing the story. Instead, the May 7 AP report was about events that occurred in Sept. when the double-agent was extracted, and that operation was long over by the time it was leaked. AP didn't tell AQAP anything they didn't already know.

The WH and DOJ have overreacted and overreached on this display of anti-leaker power against a major media organization. Like the IRS probe of c(4) organizations with TP in their names, this has been a mistake, and the Administration should now back away carefully.

[uponit7771]

8. True but it looks like the REAL issue is the AP shouldn't have had it at all!!

[DearAbby]

9. BINGO

[leveymg]

11. Not sure that's the case. The underwear bomber and the FedEx toner bombs were also "controlled" ops

This later incident helped to open the eyes of some people in this country to the fact that a whole slew of these incidents centered in Yemen and connected with Anwar Awlaki were essentially CIA operations. These may have been sting operations, but they were terribly risky, so it's probably best they were closed down.

BTW: the events AP reported in May happened the previous September. The network had already been rolled-up.

The public has a need to know about these things, as it's our lives that are on the line. Sometimes, these ops go bad, as occurred on 9/11/01.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. This is the stupid shit I've ever heard

The leak had already taken place. The media is jumping the shark here.

[snooper2]

12. "sweeping secret subpoena of the press association’s phone records"

They didn't even have an active tap put in place to capture the audio- Just wanted to months of calling/called party information date and probably call duration...

SWEEPING! out of 1000's of TN the AP have LOL

[leveymg]

13. It's pretty sweeping by the standards of other leaks.

Normally, there's a damage assessment done. The leaker is quietly fired. And it's back to business as usual in DC, which includes selective leaking.

This is an effort to intimidate AP and other news agencies to not print leaks. That's not a good thing.

[snooper2]

14. Let me try to explain how this works--

If a FBI case agent or somebody in Justice are looking at phone records in the course of a criminal investigation, it makes PRETTY good sense that the person or persons being investigated DON'T know that you are looking at their records, or calls, or doing a wiretap. You kind of don't want the bad guys knowing what you are doing LOL

[KoKo]

15. Well...I refused to believe there was a "Blue Dress"...until the very last.

I thought it was all just a trashing of Clinton with lie after lie by the media.

So, wouldn't ignore Michael Isikoff. He's privy to exclusive info.