Obama folks spying on reporters

The scandals just keep coming. Now we find out that the Obama folks are spying on individual reporters. The IRS problem is getting more serious, as we find the WH knew about the problem weeks ago. An interesting question. The IRS used keyword “Patriot” to search for conservatives. What word might they use to find liberals?

There is still nothing that connects Obama himself with all these scandals. Perhaps it is not surprising. He is just not been paying attention to doing the job.

Posted by Christine & John at May 20, 2013 7:12 PM
Comment #366263

The situation with reporter Rosen at FOX is very interesting. I will be very curious to see how it plays out. Does a reporter have the right to leak classified information that harms national security? And if the original leaker is caught, and the ensuing investigation implicates a reporter, does that right still apply? Is the reporter protected, even when the original leaker is subject to prosecution?

For what it’s worth, I think the laws protecting the 1st Amendment need to be spelled out and put in place to protect the media to a very great degree. It’s worth erring on the side of the 1st amendment. However, a reporter should not be provided with blanket protection. If someone is caught leaking classified material that can harm national security- i.e., all of us- then they’re subject to the same laws as everyone else, and that should include the reporter. This reporter, Rosen, was pretty stupid. He was caught because he was foolish, and left an easily traceable trail connecting him with the original leaker. Personally, if I were on the jury, I think I’d send the reporter up the river, but I can certainly see there are two sides to this.

The IRS scandal? Hmmm. Turns out Issa knew about it in summer 2012. When informed, he did precisely nothing, because an IRS IG was already on it. Sounds like this one is going nowhere.

Posted by: phx8 at May 20, 2013 11:02 PM
Comment #366267

I’m not going to click on that, DSP. The link looks all wrong. What do you want to say?

Posted by: phx8 at May 20, 2013 11:28 PM
Comment #366269

Perhaps instead of being lazy, DSP2195 should take the time to format his links.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 20, 2013 11:40 PM
Comment #366271

phx8, so again you seem to miss the point of the whole thing. Rosen is being accused of simply ASKING THE QUESTION. It isn’t about leaking classified documentation, it is about asking for information.

The case centers on Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department arms expert accused of passing details to Rosen from a classified report within hours of its release to a small circle within the intelligence community. Investigators also targeted Rosen, calling him a co-conspirator in an affidavit seeking a search warrant for Rosen’s personal e-mails.

In the affidavit, FBI agent Reginald Reyes said Rosen “asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.” He added, “The reporter did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.”

That detail particularly irked media lawyers and transparency experts, who said the Justice Department had crossed a line by equating routine reporting practices with possible criminal activity.

“Neither flattery nor an insistent tone rises to the level of a criminal offense,” Aftergood said.

Investigators pulled Rosen’s security badge records, phone logs and his personal e-mails, but they never charged him with a crime. No reporter has ever been prosecuted for seeking classified information.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 12:05 AM
Comment #366272

BTW, don’t you think that Nixon would have loved to have been able to do the same thing to Woodward and Bernstein to find out who Deep Throat was? Nixon went to his grave with good feelings toward Mark Felt and even testified on his behalf and never knew it was he who fed the most damaging (classified) information to reporters.

The fact that you can actually try to find some way to defend the administration for this most outrageous act just shows everyone else how in the tank you are…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 12:16 AM
Comment #366273
“He didn’t leak. He had to really be squeezed,” Bernstein said in a 2006 interview. “He confirmed mostly what we had gotten elsewhere. He didn’t want to volunteer a lot of information, yet his role was essential in giving us a solidity and a knowledge that what we were reporting was right.”

Felt, who retired from the FBI in 1973, had his own legal problems. He was convicted in 1980 on conspiracy charges for authorizing government agents to break into homes without search warrants in a hunt for bombing suspects in 1972 and 1973.

When the case went to trial, former President Nixon testified on Felt’s behalf. Felt was eventually pardoned in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 12:19 AM
Comment #366274

You’re right. This case with Rose is unusual. Most cases involving leaks target the reporter, in hopes of finding the leaker. In this case, it sounds like the case developed the other way around; because so few people had access to that information, the leaker was identified, and then pointed to the reporter, claiming he was coerced into leaking. There would be no case if the government had not first identified the source of the leak.

Like I said, I would prefer to see us err on the side of the 1st, and freedom of the press; then again, I would not like to see reporters given carte blanche to compromise national security. In this case, the reporter may have crossed the line.

To present an extreme example, would a reporter be protected by freedom of the press if they obtained and published launch codes for a nuclear strike? Just as freedom of speech does not give a person the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, freedom of the press does not give a member of the media the right to endanger the nation.

Btw, another leak has interesting ramifications. Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard published a false e-mail re Benghazi and State Department involvement, and the source of the leak seems to be the office of Senator Coburn (R) from OK. I doubt this will amount to anything, but it’s interesting to know the players in campaigns of disinformation.

Posted by: phx8 at May 21, 2013 12:40 AM
Comment #366276


A reporter cannot leak classified information since he does not have a security clearance.

You make a decent point about national security, but we tend not to push it with “journalist”. There has not been a prosecution of this sort of thing since Woodrow Wilson. Even that little shit Asange has not be indicted for his crime, which was done with malice in the hopes of causing damage to our country.

I tend generally to be a bit stronger on this than you guys. I was outraged when the NYT revealed the terrorist surveillance, for example. But the Obama folks are playing a little loose on this. A leak that damages national security is always bad. A leak that is merely politically embarrassing, I don’t think so.

RE IRS - it is dangerous when the IRS goes on a political witch hunt. That they use the word “patriot” to find conservatives is interesting. I suppose they would look for “victim” if they were after liberals. I don’t think Obama knew, but that is almost worse. It shows he is not running the country.

Posted by: CJ at May 21, 2013 6:27 AM
Comment #366280

And so it goes:

“Swamped in controversies, President Obama and his slow-footed team are essentially telling the American public, “We’re not crooked. We’re just incompetent.”

The IRS targeting conservatives, the Justice Department snooping at The Associated Press, the State Department injecting politics into Benghazi, the military covering up sexual assaults, and the Department of Veterans Affairs leaving heroes in health care limbo – each of these so-called scandals share two traits.

First, there is some element of “spin,” the cynical art of telling just enough of the truth to avoid political embarrassment. Obfuscation and demagogy, the dirty tools of political quackery that Obama pledged to purge from Washington, enjoy top-shelf status at his White House.

Second, there is almost comical bungling. While denying involvement in high crimes and misdemeanors, the Obama administration appears to be pleading guilty to lesser crimes of bureaucratic incompetence. But that is an unsustainable position for a president who wants Americans to believe again in the power and grace of good government, particularly as it relates to the implementation of Obamacare.

—IRS agents targeted conservatives. Their bosses lied about it for months.

—Justice Department investigators violated internal guidelines to secretly spy on The Associated Press.

—White House and State Department officials minimized their role in shaping initial explanations for the Benghazi attack.

—Military officers assigned to sexual assault prevention units are charged with sexual battery. The Pentagon’s own study finds that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012. It’s not a new problem.

—Despite a 40 percent increase in funding, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs cannot ease a backlog of cases. The typical wounded warrior waits more than 300 days for action on a claim. In major cities, the wait can be 642 days.

The backdrop to this parade of buffoonery is a decades-long decline in the public’s faith in government, a trend continued under Obama. Restoring the public’s trust in his governance is the only way Obama can survive the controversies with his agenda and legacy intact.”


Posted by: George at May 21, 2013 8:09 AM
Comment #366283

And so it still goes:

“The AP, IRS and Benghazi matters represent a scandal not of presidential wrongdoing, but of presidential indolence, indifference and incompetence in discharging the duties of chief executive.

The Barack Obama revealed to us in recent days is something rare in our history: a spectator president, clueless about what is going on in his own household, who reacts to revelations like some stunned bystander.

Consider. Because of a grave national security leak, President Obama’s Department of Justice seized two months of records from 20 telephones used by The Associated Press. An unprecedented seizure.

Yet the president was left completely in the dark. And though he rushed to defend the seizure, he claims he was uninvolved…

The Benghazi issue is of far greater gravity. Still, Obama’s sins here as well seem to be those of omission, not commission.

The president was apparently completely in the dark about the urgent requests from Benghazi for more security. Obama was also apparently completely out of the loop during the seven-hour crisis of Sept. 11-12, when Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, calls for help from Benghazi were denied and two heroic ex-Navy SEALs died fighting to defend U.S. personnel from the roof of that CIA installation.

No one seems to know where Obama was that night.

As for the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party applications for tax-exempt status, this bureaucratic misconduct began as far back as 2010, when the Tea Party was a national sensation.

Yet, despite Tea Party protests to members of Congress, who made inquiries of the IRS, the discrimination against groups with “Tea Party” and “Patriot” in their names continued, and was extended to groups whose proclaimed mission was to defend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Literally for years this went on. Investigations were begun by the IRS, and the results reported to the Treasury Department.

But nothing was made public before the election of 2012.

This weekend we learned that the White House counsel was told this April about the IRS misconduct and the investigations, but she did not inform President Obama. He learned about it from news reports.

What we have here, it appears, is a government out of control and a president clueless about what is going on in that government…

For years, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other Democrats have slandered and slurred Tea Party people as enemies of progress—smears echoed by their mainstream press allies.

Should we then be surprised that IRS bureaucrats, hearing this, thought they were doing what was right for America by slow-walking applications for tax exemptions from these same Tea Party folks?

Who demonized the Tea Party people? Who created the climate of contempt? Whoever did gave moral sanction to those IRS agents.

And the Spectator President is right in the vanguard.


Posted by: George at May 21, 2013 8:19 AM
Comment #366284

Republicans decide they don’t want the leaks investigated after all!

Give me a break. You criticize Obama for the leaks, blame them on him, and it turns out that at least some of it, by the information in your article, came from a Fox News Reporter who encouraged his source to leak classified information!

What patriots!

Here’s a little clue: if you want to be consistent, bring up a bill that says this can’t be done. If you want to be consistent, tell us you were wrong to go after the Obama Administration for not going after the leakers.

There’s nothing in this scandal that doesn’t loop right back towards the right.

If you want leaks investigated, count on things like this happening.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2013 9:22 AM
Comment #366285

It wasn’t classified.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 12:46 PM
Comment #366286

To attack on all fronts the way Republicans have is to make sure there is consistency on no front. What is it, is Obama bad because he can’t know everything that people in his government are doing? Or is Obama bad because he’s a socialist taking over everything?

The Republicans wanted the leaks investigated. They set up the situation during the Bush Administration, in terms of the powers the executive branch exercised. But now that it’s directed at a news organization (funny how a leak investigation would lead towards journalists), and finally an individual journalist, you’re angry.

Well, what are you unhappy with here? The power you didn’t curtail, or the President you compelled to make this investigation a priority?

I look at the quotes of that affidavit, and it seems that by the time it got down to that FOXNews Reporter, there was a good reason to get a look at him. Funny how that works. The Conservative Media reporter leaks national security information, something the conservatives get in arms about, then an investigation rebounds on the press, then onto the conservative media reporter, and the Conservatives don’t like it!

You know, the truth is, Republicans have done their best to both cripple Obama’s power, and hype it’s image in the Press, to bash him for what does or does not do, then turn around bash him for trying to get a handle on it.

At this rate, with Conservatives, I feel if I get into a revolving door ahead of them, they’ll be in front of me when I get out. Your people want to destroy him from any angle and any side, and in your desperation you fail to realize that your attacks, much less his counterresponses, are cancelling each other out.

Benghazi is a bust because people understand that official stories can change as information is gathered and investigations complete.

The IRS and AP stories aren’t having the legs they are because on the first Obama has been ruthless in cutting off those in charge, and on the second? Democrats can easily point to a hundred things Republicans could have done and should have done differently, and Republicans asked for the investigation in the first place.

The hard truth here is that Republicans, by trying a kitchen sink approach, dilute and cancel out the other attacks, wasting efforts and undermining the effectiveness of their efforts to alienate people from Obama. Additionally, Obama pre-empts many attempts to bash him by getting in there and doing a good job, such that even conservatives are unable to attack him on things without getting a political knock themselves. Doing your job right is one of the best ways to shield yourself from criticisms, and often Obama does just that. Nobody expects Obama to know everything that the massive federal government does off the top of his head, but they do expect him to act when he learns of it, and he does.

Bush’s problem is that he often failed to meet the standards of such tests, and expected the conservative media to cover for his ass. He didn’t learn what a lot of Democratic Party Politicians do: if you screw up policy, and don’t make it right, then you will lose ground.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2013 1:03 PM
Comment #366287

I stand corrected. He didn’t leak classified documents. He discussed the content of classified documents. A different story.

“In its obsession to clamp down on perfectly appropriate conversations between government employees and the press, the Obama administration has forgotten that wise foreign policy must be founded on a two-way conversation between government and the public. It is so disappointing that the Justice Department has chosen to stretch the espionage laws to cover ordinary and normal conversations between government officials and the press and, in doing so, destroy the career of a loyal civil servant and brilliant foreign policy analyst. There is no allegation that a document was given, that any money changed hands, that any foreign government was involved, or that there was any improper motive in the type of government/media exchanges that happen hundreds of times a day in Washington.”


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #366290
Here’s a little clue: if you want to be consistent, bring up a bill that says this can’t be done.

A bill is not needed, it’s already the law of the land. It’s called the US Constitution…

If you want to be consistent, tell us you were wrong to go after the Obama Administration for not going after the leakers.

1) I never went after the Obama Administration for not going after the leakers, but let’s leave that out now since you have a problem with seeing anyone who disagrees with the Obama Administration as not being 100% in agreement on all things, identical clones of each other…

2) OK *NOW* you are going to have a problem with HYPOCRISY? When it is being displayed by your opponents? How many freaking times have you tried to tell me that ‘the appearance of hypocrisy’ is wrongheaded and it should be used as a ‘means of debate’? I love how meta your whole comments are in this case, being hypocritical by calling your opponent hypocritical after defending against using hypocrisy as a matter of debate… It’s AWESOME.

There’s nothing in this scandal that doesn’t loop right back towards the right.

Other than everything? I agree.

If you want leaks investigated, count on things like this happening.

Is this why the left is so silent on all of the abuses of the government when investigating murder, rape, terrorism, wallstreet abuses, etc. Hell, why have the 1st amendment to begin with! Of course you don’t care that this administration is abusing all kinds of constitutional protections, you just assume that is the cost of doing business, right? There is no way to investigate anything unless you can violate every right that citizens of the United States have. That’s why the treatment of Manning is a-ok with you.

Then you have the president telling everyone a month ago that we have nothing to fear from government.

It really makes an ACLU member like myself have their head explode.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 1:46 PM
Comment #366291

Saw a great line today…

The greatest trick George W. Bush ever pulled was convincing the world his name was Barack Obama.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 2:03 PM
Comment #366292


The greatest trick Barack Obama ever pulled was convincing the world his name was George W. Bush

I find it interesting how this works both ways (if you have an unfavorable opinion of these two men).

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 21, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment #366293

Stephen Daugherty, your link describes a seemingly incompetent journalist talking to an incompetent public official.

Duh! Those are a dime a dozen!

Or, perhaps:

Thomas Andrews Drake

In early June, shortly after the May 22, 2011 6:00 pm broadcast of a 60 Minutes episode on the Drake case, the government dropped all of the charges against Drake and agreed not to seek any jail time in return for Drake’s agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of misusing the agency’s computer system. Drake was sentenced to one year of probation and community service. At the July sentencing hearing the presiding judge, Richard D. Bennett of the Federal District Court, issued harsh words for the government, saying that it was “unconscionable” to charge a defendant with a list of serious crimes that could have resulted in 35 years in prison only to drop all of the major charges on the eve of trial.[62] The judge also rejected the government’s request for a large fine noting that Drake had been financially devastated, losing his $154,600 job at the NSA and his pension.


Jeffrey A. Sterling

“If Sterling was such a dangerous person, how come they left him on the street for so long?” MacMahon said. “He’s a good American. He’s a loyal American. He never put a single person at risk.”
That case languished. The CIA claimed allowing the lawsuit to go forward would reveal ‘state secrets.”

Leading to:

Kim’s lawyers, Abbe D. Lowell and Ruth Wedgwood, faulted the government with criminalizing exchanges “that happen hundreds of times a day in Washington.”
“In its obsession to clamp down on perfectly appropriate conversations between government employees and the press, the Obama Administration has forgotten that wise foreign policy must be founded on a two-way conversation between government and the public,” Lowell and Wedgwood said in a statement.

It’s looking like a pattern! Arrest someone who says something that might hurt the administration, bankrupt them, and then…

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 2:16 PM
Comment #366295

Take a look at what the FBI is doing to antiwar.com…


According to the suit, the ACLU has made several futile attempts to obtain the FBI files since a reader alerted Garris and Raimondo to this lengthy FBI memo in 2011. The details in question begin at page 62 of the heavily redacted 94-page document. It’s clear from these documents, the suit alleges, that the FBI has files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommends further monitoring of the website in the form of opening a “preliminary investigation …to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security.”

“On one hand it seemed almost funny that we would be considered a threat to national security, but it’s very scary, because what we are engaging in is free speech, and free speech by ordinary citizens and journalists is now being considered a threat to national security and they don’t have to prove it because the government has the ability to suppress information and not disclose any of their activities – as witnessed with what is going on now at the AP and other things,” said Garris.

“The government’s attitude is they want to know all, but they want the public to know as little as possible.”

It’s a war on transparency that has been going on for some time, but it was SUPPOSED to end with this president. In this regard, and in almost every other regard in which this president promised he would be different than GW Bush, the reality is that he has been worse. Way worse.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 3:47 PM
Comment #366296

More IRS goodness…

Top White House staff, including Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, knew that a potentially damaging inspector general’s report on the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea party groups was looming but decided not to inform President Barack Obama.

Press Secretary Jay Carney, who was peppered with questions about what and when the White House and the president knew, told reporters Monday that it was “appropriate” that nobody told the president anything because there was nothing to be done until the report came out. Any action would have amounted to interfering in an investigation, Carney said

So, it’s ok that the Chief of Staff knew, but it was not ok that the President knew…?

I’m sorry, but I am a little confused on this one.

Does anyone tell him anything at all?

Who is really making the decisions at the White House?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 4:00 PM
Comment #366297
“A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

“Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.”

No legs my arse…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #366299

How often does the Chief of Staff go golfing with the almighty one? Maybe there isn’t enough time in the day to let the god know what’s going on. Maybe, because he is a god, they think he’s suppose to know already.

Ha! I crack myself up!

No, seriously, the msm will pull his asterisks out of the fire. They know how to do that. They did it with Clinton. Their real goal is to save the Democratic Party from his incompetence.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 5:23 PM
Comment #366300

Bush was supposed to be the dumbest person to ever hold the office of president. According to the left, Bush’s administration was right down there one level below moronic. At the same time we have to put up with the leftist on WB tell how intelligent they are compared to everyone else. Then they tell us Obama is the smartest black man to ever live.

Now, we are faced with a president, administration, and cabinet that have no idea where they are, what their job descriptions are, who is in control, and on top of it all…they have lost their memories. The left made fun of Reagan having Alzheimer’s; and yet we are faced with an Obama administration and cabinet that are all suffering from Alzheimer’s.

Bush was a genius compared to this stupid black man living on the tax payer’s dollar.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 21, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #366301

Stephen, you are an absolute joke. How would you like to hold Obama to the same standards as you held Bush?

Posted by: George at May 21, 2013 5:50 PM
Comment #366302


As I wrote, we should indeed pursue leakers. As I wrote, I was outraged by the NYT revealing secret information about terrorist surveillance.

But singling out journalists before there has been a crime is dangerous. Bush didn’t do it; Clinton didn’t do it; Reagan and Carter didn’t do it and they kept us safe. You have to go back to Nixon for such behavior.

Obama is a great campaigner and a competent politician, but not much of a leader.

Posted by: CJ at May 21, 2013 5:53 PM
Comment #366304

Obama’s score for the front nine is higher than the IQ of anybody in his admin.

Or they are abysmally ignorant.

Or they are just plain stupid.

Or all of the above.

Posted by: tom humes at May 21, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment #366306

You folks simply don’t have a consistent story, and that steals your intended impact. Last year, or the year before that, the story was, Obama wasn’t hard enough on leakers. Now he’s too hard. One day, the story is, Obama is conspiring from the White House to use the IRS against his enemies, the next day the story is he’s too aloof.

The only think in common between these stories is negativity about Obama.

Let me tell you what I think: I think Obama’s serious about national security, fighting terrorism, things like that. I think he’s willing to alienate people on his left over those issues, deporting hundreds of thousands, aggressively pursuing leakers, and prosecuting the war on terrorism to the furthest extent of the law, as Bush left it.

Bushies who don’t like this should have thought about the implications after the fact, in terms of how things would be when the shoe was on the other foot. I encourage those people to join with Democrats, if they are able, to encourage legislation to constrain that executive power, if they don’t want Democrats with that kind of power.

On the tax issue? The long and the short of it is, Republicans have done their best to make sure that Obama doesn’t have the people he needs or wants in charge. They’ve done their best to make sure that a disconnect exists, and the people who are running Obama’s agencies for him are not people he put in charge.

As of this point, having argued one way, that Obama intentionally targeted his enemies, they now argue another, that Obama must be incompetent, since nobody told him about this controversy.

Well, there’s a lot the President, any President doesn’t get told, and there’s a lot the Republicans failed to prove while they were trying to nail Obama for this. Republicans can’t afford to be seen as light on Obama, so they’re not going to be tentative, wait for evidence. If they’re not blowing back somebody’s hair with that negativity, they’re not comfortable.

Now the real question is, what have the Republicans done lately, other than stir up controversy and conflict. That seems to be their current job: stir up enough negativity and controversy so they can get back the power they lost without actually having to do their jobs, which would require compromise in this current environment.

Trouble is, our troubles in America aren’t going to wait for the Republicans to get the power they need to feel like governing again, and I’m not sure Americans would really be fans of what the Republicans would provide, having driven themselves nuts in the process of worshipping rhetorical excess.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2013 6:42 PM
Comment #366307

Tom Humes, it’s more like the Obama administration thinks the American people are abysmally ignorant and they are just plain stupid.
All of the above.

It’s called arrogance.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 7:30 PM
Comment #366308

Stephen Daugherty, it was Obama himself who said he didn’t know about it. Any kid’s first lie to his parents is “I don’t know!” These administration officials are the one’s saying they didn’t know. Why should we believe them? I don’t hear anybody say, “Yea, I know Obama didn’t know, because I didn’t tell him. I know he was purposefully left out of the loop.”

I don’t hear anyone saying that. I don’t hear anyone speaking up for the officials testifying in front of congress verifying that they didn’t know.

Why wouldn’t they lie, Stephen Daugherty? We both know that’s what politicians do best.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 7:38 PM
Comment #366309

Stephen, there are no leaks. The only leaks, were the leaks of the death of OBL and nothing happened on that one…why? Because it was leaked to make Obama look presidential. The invasion of personal lives of the media had nothing g to do with leaks. But it did have to do with fear and intimidation of anyone who would cross Obama.

“Let me tell you what I think: I think Obama’s serious about national security, fighting terrorism, things like that. I think he’s willing to alienate people on his left over those issues, deporting hundreds of thousands, aggressively pursuing leakers, and prosecuting the war on terrorism to the furthest extent of the law”

Stephen, you don’t even have those on your side backing you on this ignorant rant.

“Republicans have done their best to make sure that Obama doesn’t have the people he needs or wants in charge.”

Who did he want, that he didn’t get. You’re full of crap Stephen; Obama has surrounded himself with every leftist Chicago thug he asked for, and the ones the congress didn’t approve, he did recess appointments. Not to mention the dozens of “Czars” he appointed who didn’t need approval.

“Now the real question is, what have the Republicans done lately”

Sorry, you whiney little piece of crap; it is Obama’s Exec branch and Senate. It’s not up to the republicans to do anything accept work for the American people, and contraire to your flawed Polls in the center column, the polls are showing Americans are upset and want this dictator reigned in.

“As of this point, having argued one way, that Obama intentionally targeted his enemies, they now argue another, that Obama must be incompetent, since nobody told him about this controversy.”

Again Stephen, you are completely full of crap; there is not one person with the ability to reason, who believes that Obama did not know what was going on. If he didn’t, then his staff needs to be fired, or they are playing a game.

“Well, there’s a lot the President, any President doesn’t get told, and there’s a lot the Republicans failed to prove while they were trying to nail Obama for this. Republicans can’t afford to be seen as light on Obama, so they’re not going to be tentative, wait for evidence. If they’re not blowing back somebody’s hair with that negativity, they’re not comfortable.”

Stephen, this investigation is not over. But why don’t you just keep kissing Obama’s a**. Your apologies for Obama goes beyond the limits. You’re disgustingly in love with this false god.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 21, 2013 7:41 PM
Comment #366310

Here you are Stephen, let’s see how much you can slander Kirsten Powers. A Democrat who “served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online.”

“How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press”

by Kirsten Powers May 21, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

“Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it’s coming for them, too.”


This woman is a Democrat, but unlike you Stephen, she is able to look at things objectively. Other than to personally attack her as a traitor; what do you have to say about her belief the Obama administration is going after anyone in the press who opposes Obama.

“First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out—because they were not Fox News. Then they came for government whistleblowers, and they did not speak out—because they were not government whistleblowers. Then they came for the maker of a YouTube video, and—okay, we know how this story ends. But how did we get here?”

Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to “delegitimize” a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video…

“What I think is fair to say about Fox … is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “[L]et’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.” On ABC’s “This Week” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Fox is “not really a news station.” It wasn’t just that Fox News was “not a news organization,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel told CNN’s John King, but, “more [important], is [to] not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …”

These series of “warnings” to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.

Yet only one mainstream media reporter—Jake Tapper, then of ABC News—ever raised a serious objection to the White House’s egregious and chilling behavior. Tapper asked future MSNBC commentator and then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “[W]hy is [it] appropriate for the White House to say” that “thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a ‘news organization’?” The spokesman for the president of the United States was unrepentant, saying: “That’s our opinion.”

Trashing reporters comes easy in Obama-land. Behind the scenes, Obama-centric Democratic operatives brand any reporter who questions the administration as a closet conservative, because what other explanation could there be for a reporter critically reporting on the government?”

From the same article.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 21, 2013 8:00 PM
Comment #366311

“But singling out journalists before there has been a crime is dangerous.”

There isn’t much dispute that he encouraged the release of classified information regarding North Korea’s nuclear program and published some of that information. Whether that was a crime is a question of fact as to the sensitivity of the information and the degree to which he aided and abbeted the release. This was not an indictment but an affidavit for a search warrant based on probable cause to determine if a crime had indeed been committed.

The case basically turns on whether the type of classified information solicited and published was harmful to US interests under the Espionage Act. In this case, it is whether the solicitation and publication that the US had information from a highly placed source(s) within North Korea as to its intentions with its nuclear program was harmful to US national interests.

If you think that the information was indeed harmful and it is the type of information that should be protected, then the authorization of the search warrant was justified.

It should be noted that FOX news was cognizant of the problem in the published article: “FOX News is withholding some details about the sources and methods by which American intelligence agencies learned of the North’s plans so as to avoid compromising sensitive overseas operations in a country — North Korea — U.S. spymasters regard as one of the world’s most difficult to penetrate.”

The question is then whether the general disclosure that the US had penetrated North Korean high level decision making was a material disclosure compromising US intelligence operations.

I realize that Stephen has already made the above points but they seem to be ignored or dismissed out of hand. I guess I can understand that from a political perspective but, really, inducing and then disclosing classified information revealing our ability to penetrate North Korea’s nuclear decision making seems pretty important to me.

Posted by: Rich at May 21, 2013 8:12 PM
Comment #366313

The information they got was incorrect. The information was to be a nuke test. The test never happened.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #366315


Revealing classified information is a crime. I hate those pinheads who reveal things that hurt our country. I opposed the NYT when they undercut our war on terror. I wish the Wiki guy would just die. I have no sympathy for these sorts of people. However, we need be very careful with journalists. It is their job to try to find things out. Indeed, I would hope that they would be patriotic enough not to publish things that hurt our country. I still fault the NYT for what they did.

It depends on the type of secret. Politicians like to keep lots of things secret, some of them are just embarrassing to the politician.

The Obama folks leaked information re their success against terrorism. Perhaps they should check themselves.

Posted by: CJ at May 21, 2013 9:15 PM
Comment #366316

Stephen’s points are ignored because they don’t make any sense. They are simply the Obama talking points presented by Jay Carney. Anything to protect Obama.

As far as the warrant is concerned, the first judge the Obama administration went to, refused to allow a warrant. But the Obama administration was not satisfied until they found a magistrate who would issue the warrant:

“When the Obama Justice Department wanted to get a warrant so they could read the e-mails and review the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, they went to U.S. Magistrate Alan Kay, who granted the warrant on the basis of the DOJ’s claim that Rosen may have been guilty of criminal conspiracy. That flies in the face of all legal history concerning reporters who doggedly pursue information, even classified information.

Yet Kay granted the warrant. Why would he do that? Well he may not be a big fan of Fox News.

In 2006, Kay issued a ruling favorable to Guantanamo Bay detainees and highly critical of the Bush Defense Department in their treatment of the detainees. According to Kay’s Wikipedia page, Fox News quoted extensively on the air from Kay’s ruling in the case of Salim Muhood Adem v. George W. Bush. I have not seen the segment, but knowing Fox News – particularly on issues like Gitmo in the post-9/11 years – I think it’s a pretty safe guess that they weren’t quoting Kay’s ruling as a means of praising his decision.

This is crucially important. In order to secure the warrant that allowed them to read his e-mails, the Obama Justice Department accused Rosen of criminal conspiracy, and in order to make that stick – against all legal precedent – they had to find a judge who was willing to buy the argument. Kay was their man…”


“THE first outraged tweet I saw about it came from the Associated Press’s Ron Fournier(https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/336441170152542208) : the Department of Justice (DOJ) had “tracked Fox News reporter via key card and seized personal emails. #Chilling @AP”. That turned out to be a little off-point. The DOJ had checked the visit log of Fox News reporter James Rosen(http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story_1.html) as he was entering and leaving the State Department one day in 2009, and that of State Department officer Stephen Kim, to back up the suspicion that Mr Kim had leaked information from a top-secret intelligence report on North Korea which had just been distributed that day, and which led to Mr Rosen’s article a few hours later. This seems unsurprising, and no more or less upsetting than checking an old-fashioned sign-in book would have been. Further, the DOJ had gotten a search warrant from a judge to read two days’ worth of Mr Rosen’s emails. This goes significantly further, but in a sense it’s not terribly surprising either: in an age when the FBI can issue secret National Security Letters to get the authority to read anyone’s non-encrypted electronic communications for virtually whatever reason they want, it seems rather quaint to be outraged that the DOJ is using the old-fashioned, relatively transparent route that requires it to show probable cause and get a warrant first.

But the question remains, why did the judge grant the government a warrant to search a reporter’s emails? And that’s where the troubling part comes in. To convince the judge there was probable cause, the government said it believed Mr Rosen had been a “co-conspirator” with Mr Kim, because he had actively solicited the leak. It is not a crime in America to publish classified information, but it’s a crime to leak it, and in this case, the Obama administration was saying Mr Rosen was culpable for encouraging an official to leak. That sort of charge does have a chilling effect on the press: it’s supposed to be a reporter’s job to press sources to leak as much information as possible. When reporters worry they might land in jail for pushing their questions too hard, that’s basically the definition of “chilling effect”.

Here’s the thing, though: while the DOJ charged Mr Kim in 2010 under the Espionage Act(https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-13889-obama-administration-has-aggressively-prosecuted-leaks-and-whistleblowers-who-are-they) , it did not actually charge James Rosen as a co-conspirator in the case. Prosecutors presented the theory that he was a co-conspirator to the judge when they wanted access to emails they needed as evidence to charge Mr Kim with leaking, but having obtained the emails and charged Mr Kim, they then left Mr Rosen alone. If they were seeking to intimidate the press, burying this accusation in a search-warrant request and then declining to follow up on it is an odd way to do so. Indeed, the government kept the search warrant secret for a year, and it’s taken three years for a newspaper to finally notice it happened…

The mainstream press, regardless of ideological colouration, has reacted with uniform anger to the revelation of the buried years-old co-conspiracy theory the government used to get its search warrant on Mr Rosen. The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has been tweeting furiously about it.”


Obama’s DOJ lied in order to get the warrant. The emails, g-mails, and phone records went far beyond the scope of the warrant. The purpose was to intimidate and strike fear into the heart of anyone opposing Obama. The press has the right to be upset, this is 3rd world politics. Obama is a dangerous man to the United States.

“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter,” said Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice president for news. “In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press….”

“The Kim case is further along than a more recent leak probe in which prosecutors secretly subpoenaed Associated Press phone records. In the AP case, AP President and Chief Executive Gary Pruitt said the government’s conduct has already had a chilling effect on newsgathering, a week after the AP subpoenas were revealed publicly.

In June 2009, Rosen reported that U.S. intelligence officials warned President Barack Obama and senior U.S. officials that North Korea would respond to a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning nuclear tests with another nuclear test.

The 2010 affidavit for a search warrant, first reported by The Washington Post, does not identify Rosen as “the reporter,” but he wrote the story at issue, and Fox News confirmed it was him on Monday.

The White House wouldn’t comment about tracking Rosen, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. Instead, White House spokesman Jay Carney cited a media shield law Obama supports as evidence of his commitment to journalistic freedom, reprising an argument the White House used a week earlier in declining to address the Justice Department’s probe involving AP.”


“Veteran Journalist Brit Hume Condemns FBI Investigation Of Fox’s James Rosen”

Published May 21, 2013. | By Webmaster.

“Following a showing that the Obama administration under the Justice Department had singled out Fox News’ James Rosen, including secretly reading his personal emails, FNC’s Brit Hume took the Obama administration to task for its actions.

Appearing on Special Report w/ Bret Baier on May 20, the veteran Washington journalist described the actions by the Justice Department as something where “federal prosecutors have rarely if ever gone before.” At issue are details in which Rosen met with a State Department official & obtained secret details approximately State Department actions & intelligence on a foreign country now identified as North Korea. As a result, the FBI obtained a search warrant for Rosen’s personal files, including his personal email account, to investigate Rosen’s activities in connection to the North Korea story. [See video after jump. MP3 audio .]

Hume observed that by obtaining “a search warrant for Rosen’s personal emails they [the Obama/Holder Justice Department] have claimed to a federal court by doing what journalists do which is to try to ferret out secrets of government & report them.”

Hume pointed out that the FBI has never made a claim that Rosen obtained information from a State Department official as a means to “help an enemy” yet rather according to Rosen to “report authoritatively & ahead of the competition on new initiatives or shifts in U.S. policy, events on the ground & what intelligence is picking up.” In other words, Rosen’s work put no one in danger; it merely noted shifts in U.S. policy in reaction to North Korea.

“The president & his attorney general can recite all the platitudes they like approximately their respect for press freedom & the need for investigative reporting. But this FBI affidavit contradicts them all,” Hume observed, pointing out:”


It’s all about Rosen writing an article that pointed out the administration had weakened their policy toward North Korea. This was payback of a corrupt administration.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 21, 2013 9:27 PM
Comment #366317

Here’s another strange incident:

“Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has been dogged in her reporting on administration scandals including Fast and Furious and Benghazi, believes her computers have been compromised.

Attkisson tells Politico “I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter.” Attkisson believes the possible infiltration of her computer began in Feb. 2011 during her reporting on Fast and Furious.”


Did Benghazi or Fast and furious have anything to do with this? We are only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg regarding the corruption of this administration.

Posted by: George at May 21, 2013 9:42 PM
Comment #366319

Stephen, once again you are making a mess of your defense…

The Republicans said to investigate the leaker. They did not say ‘investigate the leak using all means, illegal and questionable and beyond the pale of anything anyone has ever done before’.

Defending the Obama administration on this is like saying that Nixon should have had Woodward and Bernstein arrested for espionage…

A reporter working an informant for information has been going on for decades. Now you find something wrong with it just because you have a hard on for the president?

And, btw, I seriously doubt the president even KNEW anything about it, since he doesn’t seem to know much about anything…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 11:07 PM
Comment #366320

This is getting sickening…

Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

“I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,” Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. “I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.”

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration’s green energy spending, which she said “the administration was very sensitive about.” Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year’s attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.


Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2013 11:23 PM
Comment #366333
To make matters worse in terms of press freedom, there are many reasons to assume the Obama administration is secretly spying on many other journalists and organizations. With Fox’s Rosen, the administration got an actual warrant to read his email and contends that he has committed crimes by pursuing and publishing a story about North Korea, even though the story apparently doesn’t include any classified information per se. Rosen hasn’t been legally charged as of yet, but as Glenn Greenwald notes, the accusations against Rosen parallel government charges against WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange. “Under U.S. law,” writes Greenwald, “it’s not illegal to publish classified information,” so the Obama administration is claiming that it’s illegal for journalists and publishers to “solicit” such information. That doesn’t simply fly in the face of the First Amendment and Vietnam-era rulings guaranteeing press freedoms, it declares “war on journalism” by essentially criminalizing the very act of investigative reporting.

Obama’s War on Journalism: ‘An Unconstitutional Act’

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #366334

A good point in the previous article:

It’s easy to understand why he would be bothered by unwanted leaks in his administration. But his problem is the press’s gain. By definition, any media-shield law is predicated upon the government defining just who counts as a “journalist” and is thus worthy of protection—and who doesn’t count and is thus subject to prosecution. Thanks, President Obama, but we don’t need no stinking press badges, especially in an age where all sorts of decentralized reporting and unconventional news gathering come online faster than the next second-term scandal. The First Amendment is all the shield law any American needs, especially when it’s supplemented by the protections offered by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. What we really need is a president who lives by the Constitution more than he nods to it.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 12:08 PM
Comment #366335


I’ll bet Stephen Daugherty and j2t2 and phx8 are all in the fetal position, rocking back and forth, staring at their computer screen in abject horror of what’s going to happen to their precious party.

Of course, their party will survive. It’s like a zombie, the walking dead. Democratics are now showing their displeasure…

Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Stephen Lynch warned that if IRS officials don’t start cooperating more, “it will lead to a special prosecutor” being appointed. “There will be hell to pay if that’s the route that we (choose) to go down,” he said.

That makes it bi-partisan and thus, by default, exonerates the entire Democratic Party of any wrongdoing. It’s funny how he knows “there will be hell to pay” if there is a special prosecuter involved. What does he know that we don’t know?

HMMM… (rubbing my chin with thumb and forefinger) Vely intelesting!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2013 12:38 PM
Comment #366337

The added irony is that the request to look deeper into the status of ‘tea party’ groups looks to have come from Democratic senators…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 12:53 PM
Comment #366339

Yes, I commented on that earlier. It is the definition of a conspiracy! Not a theory, a documented conspiracy!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2013 1:45 PM
Comment #366345

Is it possible that this administration is inundated with conspiracies? Is it possible the allegations by the Tea Party and other conservative groups (a couple of years ago) are correct and not the conspiracy theories of a bunch of conservative nuts? Yes, it’s possible.

What we are witnessing is the actions of THE most corrupt administration that ever existed.

The Democrats are ducking for cover. They see the handwriting on the wall and want to get as far as possible from the administration. The 2014 elections are going to be very interesting.

It’s been almost 24 hours since we have heard a word out of Stephen. He attempted to spread his BS with a link to a poll, and that turned out to backfire on him. Stephen did not read the actual poll, he simply linked to a liberal talking point.

I have to agree with WW, the left is in the fetal position and might I add, calling for their momma’s.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 22, 2013 3:54 PM
Comment #366351

We should all keep in mind that a president under assault can be a very dangerous critter. obama is under fire from the opposition party, MSM and even members of his own party. With three potentially explosive investigations occurring simultaneously obama is ducking and weaving at present trying desperately to spin things to his advantage, or at least, not to his peril.

As we know from the past, these kind of investigations sometimes reach “critical mass” and when that happens Katie-bar-the-door.

Obama is prone to make mistakes when speaking extemporaneously…and the media is going to demand more live press conferences which will expose obama to more danger of misspeaking (accidentally telling the truth).

I believe obama and his administration has already passed the “damage control” point and is in full blown panic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 22, 2013 5:43 PM
Comment #366352

CORRECTION: I believe obama and his administration “have” already passed the “damage control” point and “are” in full blown panic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 22, 2013 5:51 PM
Comment #366354

I wouldn’t get too carried away with the idea that the left is in a “fetal position” and “calling for their mommas.”

The Benghazi investigation is going nowhere. The more we learn, the more discredited the most fantastic allegations of the Republicans become. The Whitehouse and/or Clinton didn’t orchestrate a coverup in the Rice talking points dispute. The CIA was the party pushing for the anti-Muslim film motivation. Is Rice deserving of an apology? In addition, neither the President or any other member of the chain of command abandoned or told any military or CIA resource to “stand down” in defense of the ambassador or other personnel.

The media “scandals” involve aggressive investigations of actual national security leaks. They weren’t about legitimate whistleblowers or plugging embarrassing political leaks. While Republicans were demanding aggressive investigation of the leaks, it turns out that the administration was doing so with a vengeance. It has been quite serious about national security. More indictments for national security violations than all other administrations combined. Perhaps the DOJ went too far but I doubt that the American public is going to get too outraged over plugging national security leaks.

On the other hand, the IRS issue may have some legs. I doubt that the administration was responsible for the initial targeting. It may even be more innocent than first meets the eye as the IRS contends. But, the manner in which the administration has handled the disclosures is disturbing. What did they know, when did they know it and what did they do about it, are questions that may prove damaging to the administration.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2013 7:16 PM
Comment #366357

Just keep believing all that BS Rich. I guess if you say something enough times, you eventually begin to believe it.

Everyone of the scandals has the possibility to go full blown. The talking points of the left is “the Republicans are on a fishing expedition”; but there only talking points.

The MSM will always do all they can to protect Obama. The problem with the AP and James Rosen invasion of rights is that the press has finally figured out “they could be next”. If the press feels threatened by Obama, they will not cut him any slack.

Doesn’t it bother you that we have a president who has no idea what is going on around him? “I forgot” and “I don’t remember” seem to be the words of the day.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 22, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #366360
The Whitehouse and/or Clinton didn’t orchestrate a coverup in the Rice talking points dispute. The CIA was the party pushing for the anti-Muslim film motivation.

Rich, again I think you need to re-read the emails that were released.

First, the emails are not the start of the discussion, they are what came out of a ‘managers meeting’. Who knows who was saying what at that point, the fact is we don’t know that information. So your assertion that it was the CIA that was ‘pushing the video’ is without any facts to back it up.

Second, they also show that the CIA mentioned that an al qaeda linked group was possibly responsible/participated in the attack. This was removed at the insistence of the State department. The WH lie that the State department was only responsible for making one minor change is disproven by the emails.

Finally, the CIA director states that the talking points as they have developed are essentially worthless, but it was up to the WH to use them if they wanted.

In addition, neither the President or any other member of the chain of command abandoned or told any military or CIA resource to “stand down” in defense of the ambassador or other personnel.

Then who did? We still don’t know that information. Unless you just believe what you are told by the CIA and Pentagon… I’m not ready to do that just yet. I think we need more information. And yes, as an American Citizen I have a RIGHT to know what the hell my government is doing in my name.

The media “scandals” involve aggressive investigations of actual national security leaks.

No, they weren’t.

They weren’t about legitimate whistleblowers or plugging embarrassing political leaks. While Republicans were demanding aggressive investigation of the leaks, it turns out that the administration was doing so with a vengeance.

Illegally and unconstitutionally. I think you are too busy listening to the talking points of the left to really see what is going on here…

Let me give you a list that I’ve seen recently:

Just a few of those that have found themselves either wire tapped or audited by the IRS: James Rosen from Fox News and his parents, the Associated Press, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, a news anchor from St. Louis named Larry Conners that interviewed Obama, Glenn Beck, Christian Organizations run by Franklin Graham and James Dobsen, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), and many other high profile conservative figures will come out.

Now the libertarian website Antiwar.com has been surveilled by the President that won the Nobel Peace Prize.

This isn’t just one guy or two that have been looked into for doing something aggregious, these are reporters and people who are critical of the administration being investigated by their government.

Rosen did nothing wrong, which is why he hasn’t (and won’t ) be indicted. Nothing he reported was a violation of anything confidential, what he was ACCUSED of doing was trying to get information out of a government employee. Just like EVERY OTHER REPORTER has for decades. It would be like investigating the phone records of Woodward to find out who Deep Throat was. Nixon wasn’t even brazen enough to try that…

Further, the AP story that prompted their phone records seized WAS a whistleblower story, the US Government was lying to the citizens. It tried to keep a story quiet about a thwarted terrorist plot when the WH didn’t want people to think there were any terrorist plots going on at the time. The story WAS APPROVED BY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. The AP did nothing at all wrong.

The phone records were obtained for April and May last year, covering a period when AP published an article about a CIA operation in Yemen disrupting an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane around the anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

The May 2012 story was potentially embarrassing to the US authorities, coming shortly after they had informed the public there was nothing to suggest any such attack had been planned, say correspondents.

That is why it was investigated, because it was a whistleblower telling the truth after the US government LIED TO US because they wanted to win an election and look good politically. THAT IS IT.

Sure, find leakers of real things being leaked that could cause undercover people harm, but if that is the norm, then we are doing something wrong as a country. And don’t investigate the leak by STOMPING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION. That would be my first suggestion.

It has been quite serious about national security.

No, it has been quite serious about finding out who is making them look bad. The AP story had NOTHING to do with ‘national security’, as did the Rosen leak. Please, North Korea might respond to sanctions with more nuclear tests? I think most everyone could have figured that one out.

More indictments for national security violations than all other administrations combined.

Because they aren’t addressing leaks, they are trying to shut up people who are telling the truth about the administration. Look at the people who are being investigated… anyone who writes anything negative about the administration is being spied on, each day we are hearing more and more people who discover that they are victims as well. This isn’t going to get any better, no matter how much you want to try to make it sound ‘tough on national security’. All it is is using the power of government for retubution…

Perhaps the DOJ went too far

Ya think?

but I doubt that the American public is going to get too outraged over plugging national security leaks.


A new poll finds the GOP edging the Democrat party on who the public trusts more on ethics and corruption. According to the poll from Rasmussen, a plurality of likely voters, 39%, have more faith in the GOP on these issues, against 37% who trust the Democrats more. While the GOP edge is narrow, it represents a dramatic 10 point swing since March, when Democrats held an 8-point edge.
On the other hand, the IRS issue may have some legs. I doubt that the administration was responsible for the initial targeting. It may even be more innocent than first meets the eye as the IRS contends. But, the manner in which the administration has handled the disclosures is disturbing. What did they know, when did they know it and what did they do about it, are questions that may prove damaging to the administration.

The fact that the Secretary of State knew and the President didn’t is one of the most telling IMO.

The problem is that these aren’t isolated things, they show a pattern, over the entire course of Obama’s administration, of trying to deceive the American people, of being the least transparent administration ever (after promising to be the most) and looking as if they really have no idea what the government they are supposedly in charge of is doing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 10:16 PM
Comment #366361
It would be like investigating the phone records of Woodward to find out who Deep Throat was. Nixon wasn’t even brazen enough to try that…

Actually, I take that back, he might have been just that brazen… Mark Felt wouldn’t talk on the phone for fear of bugs. Perhaps Obama *IS* just as brazen as Nixon.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 10:24 PM
Comment #366362
After a week of revelations about government spying on reporters and the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservatives, most voters feel “like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.”

At the same time, a new Fox News poll finds disapproval of President Obama’s job performance is above 50 percent for the first time in a year, his honesty rating is at a new low and half of voters already think he’s a lame-duck.

More than two-thirds of voters — 68 percent — feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent).

Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties.


Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 10:33 PM
Comment #366363

Rich, Obama should know something is wrong when the NY TIMES gets in the act…

The Justice Department’s investigation and surveillance of the Associated Press and Fox News have led to perhaps the most sustained wave of criticism for the Obama administration’s media policies since the president took office.

On Wednesday, the New York Times became one of the more influential voices to say what many others have been saying: that the administration’s methods are an attack on press freedom.

In a scathing editorial, the Times wrote that, “With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.”

Obama’s hyper-aggressive leak policy—and his administration’s potential equation of routine journalistic interaction with criminality—is nothing new. But the fury in the pages and on the websites of elite outlets about these positions certainly is.

The Times’ criticism echoed that of many other journalists and press freedom groups.

On Tuesday, the board of the Committee to Protect Journalists sent an outraged letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, in which it warned that the DOJ’s secret subpoenas for over 20 AP phone lines “represent a damaging setback for press freedom in the United States.” This came on the heels of a letter signed by over 50 media outlets which made similar arguments.

Wednesday also saw Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank lash out at Obama:

The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.
To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.


Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 10:47 PM
Comment #366366

Oh, and they all end up doing things like this…

Administration tried to smear a witness and brought Fast and Furious back into the public eye:

Fast and Furious is back. As if the Obama Administration needed an additional problem, the U.S. Justice Department inspector general said Monday that one of the department’s politically appointed officials retaliated against a whistleblower by leaking derogatory information to a Fox News (NWS) television producer.

Named for a misbegotten federal gun-trafficking investigation that began in Arizona in 2009, Fast and Furious eerily foreshadowed themes now casting ominous shadows over Obama’s second term—and warming the cockles of vengeful Republican hearts. Chief among these themes is the administration’s habit of exacerbating operational calamities—a lethal attack on a poorly secured U.S. outpost in al Qaeda country, for example; a leak of counterterrorism secrets; or a dysfunctional, overreaching IRS bureaucracy—by crudely attempting to stage-manage the fallout and deflect blame.


Oh, and they also have no problem with leaks when it suits them.

Attorney Victoria Toensing said Wednesday she will ask the State Department’s inspector general to launch an investigation into claims that employees there leaked personal information on her whistle-blower client to members of the media as an intimidation tactic ahead of a recent hearing on the Benghazi attack.

Toensing’s client, Gregory Hicks, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 8. Hicks is the former deputy chief of mission who was in Benghazi, Libya, at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans.

Toensing said State Department officials have told reporters that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, could not reach Hicks on the telephone to tell him about the attack because Hicks didn’t have his phone on him and was too busy relaxing and watching television. It’s an accusation Hicks has strongly refuted.


Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2013 11:25 PM
Post a comment