General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

42. Marjorie Ciohn of he Jefferson School of Law is

Reply to Control-Z (Reply #40)

Tue May 14, 2013, 09:55 PM

May 2013

Whatever...this will be painful with partisans

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