General Discussion

tavalon

(27,985 posts)

154. I thought it was actually going back and listening to the conversations

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:07 PM

May 2013

Still, I think we're parsing things here and besides, just because the Grand Jury can, doesn't mean that they should step on the first amendment. It's easy enough to do some old fashioned police foot work to find out who the leaker was and who he/she leaked it to is and should be irrelevant and private.

A few years ago we were all in a dither about TIA, Total Information Awareness. No one seems to care that it was recently revealed that the cell companies are keeping all conversations. So, can we be sure that just records were subpoenaed? I don't think we can.

Do we just forget the Constitution when it's our party that has the White House? I can't say I can hang with that. It is my opinion that the constitution, specifically the First Amendment has been breached and really, with the exception of a few people here, that seems to be the general consensus.

And on a purely practical basis, it is my opinion thus far, (open to change) that Obama just handed Congress a real scandal, something that he really can be impeached upon. And that pisses me off because there will be no chance for anything to get done if Congress is getting it's impeachment on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

170 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak. [View all] msanthrope May 2013 OP

This is going to circle right back to a Republican leaking classified information, yet once again. Ikonoklast May 2013 #1

That's what I'm thinking JustAnotherGen May 2013 #3

If that is true someone should go to jail this time. still_one May 2013 #56

Someone should go to jail for leaking a covert op. nt msanthrope May 2013 #62

The House of Reps AP phone wasn't subpoenaed for nothing...and why won't they release the 'letter?' msanthrope May 2013 #4

I am starting to wonder when the Republicans in Congress will start screaming in unison Ikonoklast May 2013 #7

Here's something interesting--it wasn't done by National Security Letter.... msanthrope May 2013 #19

I believe that was on purpose. Ikonoklast May 2013 #20

No Patriot Act or NDAA--plain old DC grand jury....and here's the thing on the letter msanthrope May 2013 #24

Yep. I'm willing bet there are some Republican undies getting fudged right about now. Ikonoklast May 2013 #29

ahhhhhh dreaming of perp walks Voice for Peace May 2013 #46

I hope so.. Cha May 2013 #99

I haven't been paying close attention & appreciate your OP here. Voice for Peace May 2013 #43

Yep. And the MSM will suddenly decide this story isn't "news worthy". n/t bushisanidiot May 2013 #38

+ 1 Berlum May 2013 #112

But will anyone be paying attention by then? efhmc May 2013 #113

That's where this is heading. harun May 2013 #123

I think you got it - all with due process - AP's cred will go down with the pubbies. freshwest May 2013 #128

I would love that JustAnotherGen May 2013 #2

Well, if I was an investigative journalist, I might ask why a major news organization msanthrope May 2013 #6

It will show just how far in the tank the AP is for them, sucking up to Republicans Ikonoklast May 2013 #9

Same here JustAnotherGen May 2013 #13

If the "letter" is actually a subpoena involving a Grand Jury truedelphi May 2013 #131

Yes--on the rest of thread there is a bit of a debate about that. I would like it answered, and msanthrope May 2013 #133

Yeah, ProSense May 2013 #5

And there you have it. DevonRex May 2013 #8

You know, we have investigative journalists on this board. I want some answers. nt msanthrope May 2013 #11

Hahaha!!!! DevonRex May 2013 #32

I have a confession--dyslexia forces me to use the spell check. When I don't, msanthrope May 2013 #33

I have a confession... DevonRex May 2013 #39

this whole three-pronged fusillade of bullshit against Obama MjolnirTime May 2013 #84

That's right. DevonRex May 2013 #87

DU Rec... SidDithers May 2013 #10

Oh, this is getting good... one_voice May 2013 #12

Shove over JustAnotherGen May 2013 #15

Yep... one_voice May 2013 #21

excellent analysis... chillfactor May 2013 #14

The bad economy, the failure of Occupy, etc. has made for some understandable disgruntlement, IMO. randome May 2013 #26

+1,000 - The Nabobs have been very false, disingenuous and condescending-NT Anansi1171 May 2013 #65

There's a lot of good thinkers on this board. Cha May 2013 #100

On one of the first threads about this the other day davidpdx May 2013 #102

This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information LanternWaste May 2013 #16

Probably a good policy davidpdx May 2013 #103

But...but...Obama....Holder...but...but MineralMan May 2013 #17

Facts are good, and one might wonder why the AP isn't showing a major one---the msanthrope May 2013 #22

The more facts the better, I say. MineralMan May 2013 #23

The letter from the government to the AP would have the code section under which msanthrope May 2013 #27

Could well be. I imagine it will be revealed in time. MineralMan May 2013 #31

OP claims "letter" is actually a Grand Jury Subpoena in a nat'l security case. Says AP can't leveymg May 2013 #36

Well, wait a second--has the AP said it isn't legally releaseable? Why are they being msanthrope May 2013 #45

Ah, but gang of 8 means the Majority and Minority Leaders plus Chair and Ranking Members of Intel Co hedda_foil May 2013 #95

Somehow, I don't see Boehner in that role, but Cantor? Wouldn't surprise me. n/t winter is coming May 2013 #109

They could redact it or they could state it is a GJ matter. Or they could say they can't say. randome May 2013 #52

I believe the OP is incorrect. Fed Rule of Cr P 6(e) states that a witness can reveal info re FedGJ leveymg May 2013 #64

Post 74 outlines the local rules exception and the grand juror exception. msanthrope May 2013 #75

Interesting. Very, very interesting. City Lights May 2013 #18

"Anybody remember how in the Spring... ProSense May 2013 #25

Oh--how interesting. Romney blamed Obama for the leak, and now, the AP is msanthrope May 2013 #30

Here's the AP email address: info@ap.org. Unless someone knows of a better one. randome May 2013 #28

I'm trying to find Gary Pruitt's...there's a 2nd letter he's not releasing, and msanthrope May 2013 #35

Here's the email I just sent. randome May 2013 #34

I got the DC desk email--- wdcdesk@ap.org msanthrope May 2013 #40

Thanks! I'll send one to that address, too! randome May 2013 #44

Curious ~ have you heard back on this?? n/t CaliGal May 2013 #151

Not a thing. nt msanthrope May 2013 #160

Pretty good speculation there... I hope you are right OKNancy May 2013 #37

k/r Dawson Leery May 2013 #41

thankyou! Whisp May 2013 #42

People have worked themselves into such a conspiracy frenzy about this President Voice for Peace May 2013 #49

I remember when the Clenis fascinated Democrats, as well as Republicans. msanthrope May 2013 #54

Let's hope this tidbit settles down all the freakazoids calling for Holder's head railsback May 2013 #47

It's amazing what comes out of the woodwork. nt msanthrope May 2013 #50

Probably Scooter Libby again.. those damn leakers Voice for Peace May 2013 #48

I also think it's highly likely that the leaker is a Republican. winter is coming May 2013 #51

More interesting is the role of the AP in this--if the leaker is a Republican, then msanthrope May 2013 #53

Looks like a vaible timeline, and points directly at a Republican operation. Ikonoklast May 2013 #60

Between this and the story about the Repubs deliberately falsifying emails re: Benghazi Number23 May 2013 #70

I was wondering how the AP confrimed the veracity of the "tip." Liberal In Texas May 2013 #156

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting n/t emulatorloo May 2013 #55

I am giving this a standing ovation. Very good news that is fit to print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anansi1171 May 2013 #57

This is why Senate Republican's are standing down on this Quixote1818 May 2013 #58

Precisely--this could be Gang of Eight. msanthrope May 2013 #61

exactly, msanthrope! hopemountain May 2013 #59

OP- Please cite a source for your claim that a subpoenaed witness cannot publish an subpoena leveymg May 2013 #63

You are forgetting the DC circuit local rules. msanthrope May 2013 #66

Local Ct. Rules don't trump Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure. leveymg May 2013 #67

If you look at rule 6e you will see the exception. And post 74 outlines msanthrope May 2013 #73

It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6). leveymg May 2013 #83

Well, if I am wrong about the rule, then why haven't they published? msanthrope May 2013 #90

If there's a sealed indictment, the subpoenas may also be sealed. The witness can talk about their leveymg May 2013 #106

You're conflating a few different things ...but again, why haven't they published? msanthrope May 2013 #110

When an indictment is sealed, the court docs - including the subpoenas - normally are, as well. leveymg May 2013 #126

Like I said....you are conflating a few different things. But you seem to have conceded the point msanthrope May 2013 #134

Put some links out, and I'll read it. leveymg May 2013 #140

I can't link off my Lexis account.*** msanthrope May 2013 #143

I have a Lexis Acct. and Pacer. leveymg May 2013 #144

No...I mean I cannot hotlink off this friggin' phone. If you are in Lexis, though, msanthrope May 2013 #146

Sounds like interesting bedtime reading! leveymg May 2013 #149

Nah...the Clinton grand jury report is what you want for bedtime. nt msanthrope May 2013 #150

I remember that 'proof'! LOL! randome May 2013 #153

In addition to the absence of support for such a claim, it seems that there is an absence of AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #68

My dear former IRS lawyer...would you care to look at 6e (3)(B)(5) in the DOJ handbook msanthrope May 2013 #74

If the very nature of the grand jury means that it operates in secrecy Number23 May 2013 #72

Then they should be upfront about that -state that they cannot publish because of that reason. randome May 2013 #78

I'm not sure that you read my response right. Number23 May 2013 #86

Msanthrope, I'd take one of you over 5 dozen of the Hair on Fire Brigade any damn day of the week Number23 May 2013 #69

Well said... SidDithers May 2013 #77

+1 SunSeeker May 2013 #89

K & R malaise May 2013 #71

judith Miller forever destroyed my faith in "free press" mainer May 2013 #76

Bravo. graham4anything May 2013 #79

Two days ago, Michael Isikoff made this point: ProSense May 2013 #80

Cui bono? cvoogt May 2013 #81

And the ratfucking allies who heap it on.....nt msanthrope May 2013 #82

Regarding the foreign policy creds: YES. DevonRex May 2013 #85

The title of the OP makes a concrete claim (AP's being investigated by GJ) then doesn't back it up. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #88

Um, a subpoena means investigation. As in, if you get a subpoena, do you msanthrope May 2013 #91

If it's a fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation I apologixe. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #92

Is "object" a legal term, defined by statute? nt msanthrope May 2013 #94

Thanks n/t cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #115

The M$M tried to slander it with the use of 'taps' Rex May 2013 #93

I really hope your correct. blackspade May 2013 #96

Just asking again Half-Century Man May 2013 #97

This is stupidly wrong Yo_Mama May 2013 #98

Actually, thank you for proving my point--where is that letter? They keep referring msanthrope May 2013 #105

Maybe the AP doesn't want to divulge the namrs morningfog May 2013 #107

Oh...watching it play out now? Awesome. nt msanthrope May 2013 #111

Yes, if the alternative is unfounded speculation morningfog May 2013 #120

That might be the funniest thing you've ever written to me! nt msanthrope May 2013 #135

They can redact or they can state they cannot publish. randome May 2013 #116

Very Informative OP, msanthrope.. Cha May 2013 #101

I hope it's Cantor, if he's in the Gang, is he? nt Ilsa May 2013 #104

I hope it is Issa. Rex May 2013 #119

That would be sweet! I don't know offhand Ilsa May 2013 #166

Excellent and informative post. Thank you. k&r n/t Laelth May 2013 #108

k&r... spanone May 2013 #114

"The AP's being investigated by a grand jury" michigandem58 May 2013 #117

Yes. You get a subpoena, you are being investigated. nt msanthrope May 2013 #147

Question for msanthrope pmorlan1 May 2013 #118

No, comrade, I am not a "Party official." Seriously, though, I do work for various msanthrope May 2013 #137

Thanks pmorlan1 May 2013 #145

There are some Party people on this site. I think it's up to them to say who msanthrope May 2013 #165

If Boomerang Tossing Were An Olympic Event cynzke May 2013 #121

Love yr description/analogy. truedelphi May 2013 #132

This thread makes me smile-Thanks for the information Gothmog May 2013 #122

Interesting Blog post pmorlan1 May 2013 #124

He makes the wrong point. randome May 2013 #125

In the bubble pmorlan1 May 2013 #127

'Sweeping attempt'. randome May 2013 #129

And of course, in a nation that is slipping into truedelphi May 2013 #130

Do you think we have a free press in practice? LiberalAndProud May 2013 #168

Your statements are not wrong, but the revolving door between industry truedelphi May 2013 #170

Let me get this straight.... GoCubsGo May 2013 #136

Why, yes--that's about the long and the short of it. nt msanthrope May 2013 #139

I would like to say this shocks me. GoCubsGo May 2013 #141

I recommended this because I want the conversation front and center tavalon May 2013 #138

The thing is, tavalon--this isn't new. The grand jury has always msanthrope May 2013 #142

I thought it was actually going back and listening to the conversations tavalon May 2013 #154

Absolutely no wiretap. This is a subpeona of certain business records, allowed msanthrope May 2013 #159

So, where did they find the craptastic idiots for Clinton? tavalon May 2013 #161

What??? The Clinton DC grand jury rocked! They refused to true bill msanthrope May 2013 #162

Allowing Holder to secretly gather the information tavalon May 2013 #163

What? Congress allows this, by statute--here's the link to 28 CFR 50.10 msanthrope May 2013 #164

Perhaps we, the public, should start demanding that the AP release the letter. Produce the letter. Skidmore May 2013 #148

Here is the email address to use: wdcdesk@ap.org. randome May 2013 #152

I think the AP should release the letter..redacting phone numbers msanthrope May 2013 #169

I remember Romney's smirk when he jumped on the Benghazi event with mostly wrong information. nt patrice May 2013 #155

Some of us recall PO saying on 9/12/12, or there-abouts, an INVESTIGATION was under-way AND patrice May 2013 #157

little kick. . . .n/t annabanana May 2013 #158

k&r... spanone May 2013 #167