General Discussion

Quixote1818

(31,155 posts)

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

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue May 14, 2013, 09:41 PM

May 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

223 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The AP scandal *is* serious [View all] nadinbrzezinski May 2013 OP

just stop. Buzz Clik May 2013 #1

Hair On Fire otohara May 2013 #5

Next week -- another conjured scandal. And we'll be here! Buzz Clik May 2013 #19

Why should I? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #6

Ok, don't stop. Buzz Clik May 2013 #15

So you think Issa made all this up nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #25

WTF? You think Issa is credible on anything? randome May 2013 #27

Seriously? We're in Phase IV of Benghazi, and you're asking if he's capable? Buzz Clik May 2013 #36

So when Holder recused himself nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #41

LOL!! It's a GOOD thing Holder recused himself. Don't you GET IT??? DevonRex May 2013 #64

Holder explained why he had recused himself. jeff47 May 2013 #95

The statists are in denial Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #158

It's been a bad week nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #160

Stop talking about the 1st Amendment? Really? sabrina 1 May 2013 #163

I found an interesting take on it, thought you might be interested. I don't know if it is serious uppityperson May 2013 #2

hasn't it also been reported that this investigation is a result notadmblnd May 2013 #14

No, it isn't. n/t MetasticTwine May 2013 #3

Not if the DOJ followed the law. Rex May 2013 #4

I heard the DOJ did 550 interviews before resorting to subpoenas. JaneyVee May 2013 #7

The problem is short circuiting their own rules nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #12

So whose head should roll? Tell us, please. randome May 2013 #26

Maybe Nadin should go back to screaming about North Korea Rex May 2013 #37

If you wish really hard, all your dreams will come true! randome May 2013 #71

Which rule did they "short circuit"? (nt) jeff47 May 2013 #79

There is no evidence the WH knew anything. randome May 2013 #8

So you think that spying on journalists is no longer a scandal? I thought it was, at least it was sabrina 1 May 2013 #165

I cannot believe Democrts are pooh-poohing this! adigal May 2013 #175

Serious for the leaker, yes. nt BootinUp May 2013 #9

And they don't even get it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #23

You're the one who doesn't get it, Nadin. As usual. nt DevonRex May 2013 #28

Of course nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #39

So that's who you are? Talk about childish. Add me to your list, please! -NT Anansi1171 May 2013 #108

Once more Floyd_Gondolli May 2013 #200

Politico: D.C. turns on Obama aristocles May 2013 #10

Like that is not a biased article. Full of suppositions and inuendo. randome May 2013 #20

So, if I understand you correctly, nadin... DonViejo May 2013 #11

Not the first time. Rex May 2013 #17

Lemme see, they went on a wide fishing expedition nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #18

Thanks for responding, nadin. nt DonViejo May 2013 #61

it might be, but i'll hold judgement till i know the facts. spanone May 2013 #13

The facts emerging make it serious, heads should roll, nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #21

Agreed. Nixonian or Bushian LittleBlue May 2013 #16

Politicians are politicians. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #24

What part turned your stomach? Control-Z May 2013 #38

Turns my stomach LittleBlue May 2013 #44

How are they Bushian? Control-Z May 2013 #45

How are they not? LittleBlue May 2013 #51

Well, you sure told me, now didn't you? Control-Z May 2013 #96

You replied to me LittleBlue May 2013 #103

Wow! Circular arguments and empty assertions lacking any detail. You go, girl! Anansi1171 May 2013 #111

I'm not here to make an argument for my view LittleBlue May 2013 #112

Even if Obama ordered it there won't be a paper trail Quixote1818 May 2013 #22

For the moment I nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #31

There was a national security leak and it was investigated KingFlorez May 2013 #29

I guess since it's a fishing expedition nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #34

It's serious but it's legal... kentuck May 2013 #30

When did that stop Issa? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #33

Are you a Constitutional/US scholar? Control-Z May 2013 #40

Marjorie Ciohn of he Jefferson School of Law is nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #42

You spoke with her? (nt) Control-Z May 2013 #46

Hayes interviewed her today nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #48

Well, if you do talk to her, Control-Z May 2013 #53

The Jefferson School of Law is down the road nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #56

Don't let 'em wear you down, Nadinb pscot May 2013 #102

Maybe you can call her base commander. Codeine May 2013 #76

Which rules did they violate? (nt) jeff47 May 2013 #80

Also, it may entail the repeal of the Patriot Act also... kentuck May 2013 #35

Nah, this goes well before nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #43

So.... kentuck May 2013 #47

In theory they have to talk to media nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #49

Does Issa have any credibility at all? kentuck May 2013 #57

He does in the *right* circles. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #59

Issa might just hand Obama the juice he needs to be really effective if so. Exultant Democracy May 2013 #32

I kinda think the real scandal is how far the admin goes DJ13 May 2013 #50

Bingo, part of it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #52

Yes It Is... WillyT May 2013 #54

It's not democrats nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #60

What ProSense May 2013 #55

My dear, it's overreach from the post watergate nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #62

WTF? ProSense May 2013 #67

You need to learn to read, nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #104

This ProSense May 2013 #134

I expected no less from you nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #138

Which rule did they violate? (nt) jeff47 May 2013 #81

I don't think you are ever going to get an answer maddezmom May 2013 #159

Why the condescending tone and arrogant tone? Your "dear" at least takes the time Anansi1171 May 2013 #114

Ah I love partisans nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #120

Nadin has spoken: IT IS A SCANDAL. Brickbat May 2013 #58

LOL!! She thinks Holder HAD to recuse himself so he must've done something BAAAAD. DevonRex May 2013 #63

I feel guilty but laughing my ass off too. Whisp May 2013 #72

I stopped feeling guilty DevonRex May 2013 #85

Why anyone would trust nadin as a "reporter" is beyond me. Do you remember..... Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #92

Yes, I remember that. Brickbat May 2013 #129

Yup. Jay Polk... SidDithers May 2013 #132

Sid, you scamp! I needed that. Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #181

So she's a fraud? JustAnotherGen May 2013 #205

Exactly. It's a matter of integrity, journalistic or otherwise. You don't disappear your mistakes, Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #211

Yes, it is. Fascinating the frantic pushback you're getting here. DirkGently May 2013 #65

wasn't wiretaps. Just phone records (metadata). key distinction. n/t yodermon May 2013 #73

You're right. But it doesn't dilute the crime much at all. DirkGently May 2013 #74

Actually, they can. If you want them to not be able to, you'll need a change in the law. (nt) jeff47 May 2013 #82

By all means, cite the law & apply it to these facts. DirkGently May 2013 #87

You're the one claiming they broke the law. So which law did they break? jeff47 May 2013 #90

Just tell me which "law? I "need to change." Surely you know. DirkGently May 2013 #99

So what would you say is 'not broad'? Two lines at a time? Two reporters at a time? randome May 2013 #86

It's early yet. But it already smells like Bush-era bullshit. DirkGently May 2013 #94

They legally subpoenaed the records. That's not a "crime" emulatorloo May 2013 #113

They did it wrong. Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #118

Your PBS link provided no specifics demwing May 2013 #123

Worth searching MediaMatters on the Associated Press. Wouldnt take AP "SPIN" at face value. emulatorloo May 2013 #162

Yes, they are a RW outfit regarding high order politics nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #182

I am hoping against hope that this violation of the press woo me with science May 2013 #66

"will outrage citizens and the media enough" ProSense May 2013 #69

Amen on that, woo! kentuck May 2013 #70

They are long dead, and you and Nadin are doing in the patsy care nothing of the coup Anansi1171 May 2013 #117

So funny how folks forget about the Patriot Act. peace13 May 2013 #170

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? woo me with science May 2013 #183

It might, and that would probably be a welcome change. ucrdem May 2013 #146

Spot on. NCTraveler May 2013 #151

If the sleeping peeps don't mind being spied on now ... peace13 May 2013 #169

"I find it offensive that people suddenly care about surveillance." woo me with science May 2013 #185

Yes... peace13 May 2013 #194

NOBODY GIVES A SHIT Uzair May 2013 #68

You don't nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #106

This is clearly a Patriot Act issue. peace13 May 2013 #171

Actually this is not a USPA issue nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #180

I care and so should you. Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #115

It is big kudzu22 May 2013 #75

AP already decided to thumb their nose at the Administration when they published what they had... randome May 2013 #88

The real scandal is that it was perfectly legal alarimer May 2013 #77

+Infinity jeff47 May 2013 #84

The probles that I am seeing is that most people have not clue what this has done. Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #78

Which rules did they bypass? (nt) jeff47 May 2013 #83

David Schulz explains it the best in his interveiw with "NEWSHOUR" Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #100

And do these rules carry the weight of law? demwing May 2013 #124

Exactly nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #109

give me a fucking break CatWoman May 2013 #89

I will give you one, two and three... nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #110

Subpoenaing business records is a standard criminal procedure FarCenter May 2013 #91

It is different for doing this with a news agency. Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #101

What part of 28 CFR 50.10 do you believe was not followed? FarCenter May 2013 #186

Ooops, she scattered! Kolesar May 2013 #189

I think that Thomas Jefferson would be mighty proud. MannyGoldstein May 2013 #93

And ProSense May 2013 #97

I'd like to think that Jefferson would examine motives. MannyGoldstein May 2013 #98

You don't even know what you're talking about. MjolnirTime May 2013 #105

Thank you... I guess partisans are hoping such nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #107

nadinbrzezinski know a little more about the repercussions that this is causing Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #116

I don't think DevonRex May 2013 #218

What posible reason did the Press have to tell us about Watergate? Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #220

If O were smart DonCoquixote May 2013 #119

Nadin JustAnotherGen May 2013 #121

This is not about the AP...it s about the First Amendment nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #125

Okay - teasing here JustAnotherGen May 2013 #135

Just so you know my husband came home from the line nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #137

This message was self-deleted by its author JustAnotherGen May 2013 #195

''so let me tell ya, you are not that special.'''... Whisp May 2013 #223

Suddenly it hits home? peace13 May 2013 #173

You know this how? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #176

Actually for the last eight years I have witnessed HLS in motion. peace13 May 2013 #198

But you assumed it hit home just now nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #207

Think what you will. peace13 May 2013 #216

I try hard not to nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #217

Actually, it is an interesting legal question. JDPriestly May 2013 #122

It is, all they violated were the protocols nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #126

this a leaker trying to damage the Presidency, not a **whistleblower*** *** *** ** * Kolesar May 2013 #128

Agreed. n/t maddezmom May 2013 #130

Yup, I knew this was coming nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #139

The Plame leaker was not a whistleblower either. CJCRANE May 2013 #168

At least I write in complete sentences Kolesar May 2013 #187

Ah now the infantile grammar attack. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #188

Yeah, goodbye Kolesar May 2013 #190

It's the Republican's fault rightsideout May 2013 #127

I agree 100% - Benghazi is a sideshow. The AP scandal is very worrisome. reformist2 May 2013 #131

Joe Scarborough, is that you? Politicub May 2013 #133

Read 137, I ain't gonna rewrite it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #140

I read it, and ProSense May 2013 #142

I expect no less from you, but blue links nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #143

Sort of ironic ProSense May 2013 #144

Yup...but I ain't no partisan either nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #147

Did you ever ProSense May 2013 #154

You still need to learn to read nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #156

No, ProSense May 2013 #161

I expect no less from partisans nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #164

"I think it is long past time to put you in the ignore list." ProSense May 2013 #167

The ethical dilemma of the AP reporting about itself Politicub May 2013 #172

But you made assumptions about me nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #177

You work as a reporter? Floyd_Gondolli May 2013 #201

The "I word?" MineralMan May 2013 #136

Is the Justice Dept not allowed to pursue criminal activity?? DCBob May 2013 #141

So far there's no sign of a cover up, and that's what sank Nixon, ucrdem May 2013 #145

Why I said it's not impeachment level nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #148

If Issa gets behind a shield law that would be one thing ucrdem May 2013 #149

2007 he had his chance nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #150

He might get another soon, ucrdem May 2013 #152

The funny thing is of all three nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #153

From a journalistic standpoint, this is a scandel, but from a "political" standpoint.. LeftInTX May 2013 #203

It involves the First Amendment nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #208

I agree, just stop as the other poster said, already there is info coming out on this of who, why EV_Ares May 2013 #155

Why I sad it don't raise to that level nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #157

Can you spell Patriot Act? peace13 May 2013 #166

Worth repeating, about assumptions that is nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #178

Hmmmm peace13 May 2013 #192

I had something to do with it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #193

This is all part and parcel of their -- Hell Hath No Fury May 2013 #174

Actually I hope you are right nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #179

what the AP scandal really is... Whisp May 2013 #184

You can delete this original post Kolesar May 2013 #191

Why would Nadin be embarassed? Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #197

Because she has no understanding of how a grand jury works, and it's painful to read so msanthrope May 2013 #199

The grand jury wasn't allowed to subpeona reporter's phone records? What fool thinks that? msanthrope May 2013 #196

Oh Please. As if this will rise to any new heights. dballance May 2013 #202

How can anyone possibly take you seriously? dballance May 2013 #204

I was not saying an attack was imminent nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #210

I agree, but not for the reasons most people either agree or disagree Corruption Inc May 2013 #206

And that is a critical point nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #209

Doesn't a judge or grand jury have to approve a subpoena? KamaAina May 2013 #212

The problem is that the procedures put in place nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #213

Get this: DOJ's actions were prompted by pressure from repukes! KamaAina May 2013 #214

There is another source nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #215

Not only that, did you see this? Nadin's gonna be pissed. Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #221

Yes it is. Fire Holder. Taverner May 2013 #219

serious like a heart attack. limpyhobbler May 2013 #222