• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

Justice Department Wiretaps Associated Press

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
This has been way under the radar in light of other issues that Obama's administration seems to have recently impaled itself. This is understandable since it serves no particular partisan agenda to make an issue out of it. However, I am very troubled by this Nixonian-style assault on behalf of the Justice Department on the first and fourth amendments:

AP files complaint over federal wiretaps

Published: May 13, 2013 10:00 PM
By RICHARD A. SERRANO. Tribune Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON -- Federal prosecutors secretly obtained records of telephone calls from more than 20 telephone lines belonging to The Associated Press and its journalists over a two-month period, in an apparent investigation of a leak of sensitive information about a terrorist plot in Yemen.

The head of The Associated Press lodged a formal complaint yesterday with the Department of Justice in Washington, for what he called an "overbroad collection" of telephone records of the wire service's reporters and editors.

The unusual monitoring of journalists' communications appeared to be part of a widening government investigation into information released about a foreign terror attack plot last year.

The investigation appears to be connected to a May 2012 AP story that disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen to halt an airliner bomb plot that was designed to coincide with the May 2011 killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Gary B. Pruitt, AP president and CEO, said in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that federal prosecutors under the direction of Washington prosecutor Ronald C. Machen Jr. obtained records covering a two-month period in early 2012 that not only included the wire service's headquarters but also bureaus in New York; Hartford, Conn.; Washington; and the House of Representatives. It also included cellphones and home phones of AP journalists.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overboard collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt warned Holder.

Machen's office declined to discuss specifics about the matter, except to indicate in a short statement that prosecutors sought the telephone records and other material after first trying to obtain the documents through "alternative means."

All this is apparently justified under the tenets of the Patriot Act but to me all it symbolizes is the unsettling reality that the terrorists have already won. If we feel no hesitancy to trample on rights guaranteed by the constitution via invocation of laws that were supposedly enacted to preserve, what is the fucking point? If we are willing to violate our most basic liberties in some perverted attempt to protect them, it would seem that we have checkmated ourselves.

Disillusioned is the word that comes to mind when I think of our current president. It appears that the old adage about power and corruption is still as valid as ever.

Source:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ap-files-complaint-over-federal-wiretaps-1.5256171
 
Let's not forget this gem, either.....

Watchdog report describes massive delays as IRS slow-walked Tea Party groups

A newly obtained watchdog report described how the "inappropriate" IRS program that flagged conservative groups for extra scrutiny led to massive delays, with some organizations stuck waiting years to find out about their applications.

The findings were contained in a highly anticipated and highly critical inspector general's report, obtained by Fox News, on a practice that IRS officials first acknowledged on Friday.
The report revealed that the program began as far back as 2010. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration concluded that it was the result of "ineffective management" and "inappropriate criteria" which must be corrected.

Describing the impact of the IRS program, the report said the flawed criteria led to Tea Party and other groups being singled out and subjected to "substantial delays." More than 80 percent of the cases it reviewed were left open more than one year, and some were left in limbo for more than three years.

Separately, Reps. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, described these delays as a "state of purgatory" for conservative groups as they sought tax-exempt status.
Republicans lawmakers already are investigating, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced Tuesday that the Justice Department would launch a probe into the IRS' activities.
The IG report, though, will likely serve as the starting point for any of those investigations.

The internal investigation found that the "inappropriate criteria" -- which led to the IRS asking Tea Party and other groups about their donors and making other intrusive requests -- was allowed to stay in place for more than 18 months. During that time, conservative groups had their applications put on hold for months, even years.

The IG report said: "As of December 17, 2012, many organizations had not received an approval or denial letter for more than two years after they submitted their applications. Some cases have been open during two election cycles (2010 and 2012)."

Further, the report said this delay meant potential donors could have been "reluctant" to provide funding to the groups.
"In addition, some organizations withdrew their applications and others may not have begun conducting planned charitable or social welfare work. The delays may have also prevented some organizations from receiving certain benefits of the tax-exempt status," the report said.

The inspector general's office reiterated what has previously been reported -- that a unit in the agency began flagging groups with "political-sounding" names like "Tea Party" and "Patriots" starting in 2010. The first formal "be on the look out" listing was distributed in August of that year.

The report also found that the Determinations Unit requested "irrelevant (unnecessary) information because of a lack of managerial review, at all levels, of questions before they were sent to organizations seeking tax-exempt status." Among the list of unnecessary questions were those asking for donor names and the roles of audience members and participants in certain programs.

The report said: "After the letters were received, organizations seeking tax-exempt status, as well as members of Congress, expressed concerns about the type and extent of questions being asked."
The report included an official response from IRS official Joseph Grant. He acknowledged that the manner in which cases were screened was "inappropriate."
"The IRS recognizes that there were delays and, in some instances, information requests that were overbroad," he said in his statement.

But, as some Republicans question whether the effort was partisan, Grant insisted that "the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan viewpoint."

The IRS has claimed the program was limited to staffers at the Cincinnati office, but other documentation suggests other offices were involved.
Issa and Jordan cited those concerns in response to the report's release Tuesday.

"We still do not know why the targeting began, how extensive it was, who initiated it and who knew about it. The IRS must be held accountable to the American people, which requires a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding the facts established in this audit," Jordan said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oups-caused-substantial-delays/#ixzz2TJkRicJw
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Of all the so called scandals brewing right now, this is the most disturbing.
 
Uh-Oh..... this just in.

Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency.

Rest of the story below.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ervative-groups-than-initially/#ixzz2TJzuTJV1
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I usually don't make calls like this, but I believe Holder will resign within 3 months.
 

lurkingdirk

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I believe this is something that has been going on for much longer than the public knows about, it is just getting harder to hide. I don't have any support for this, I merely think it.

It really is very troubling.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Senate Republicans Not Outraged Over DOJ Raid On AP Records

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/senate-republicans-doj-ap_n_3276458.html

Senate Republicans have been outraged for months over the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi consulate attack. They're outraged this week about the Internal Revenue Service singling out tea party groups for extra scrutiny. But their response to the Justice Department secretly obtaining phone records of 20 Associated Press reporters? Meh.

Republican senators who have long been critics of Attorney General Eric Holder were noticeably muted on Tuesday when asked to respond to the news of the Justice Department seizing reporters' records as part of a broader probe into national security leaks.

"Well, I think we need to see how this plays out," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of Holder's biggest critics and who last year demanded that the attorney general resign amid the Fast and Furious gun-running probe. "I have questions about it, but I'm wiling to wait and see how this plays out, whether it was narrowly targeted or whether it was a net that was too broadly cast," Cornyn said.

"I want to see the details -- what was their rationale, why did they do it -- before offering an opinion," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who earlier this week accused the administration of engaging in a "cover-up" in Benghazi. "For me, to rush to a judgment without knowing all the facts is just not appropriate."

Senate Republicans' reluctance to defend freedom of the press may stem their demands last year that Holder crack down on those behind national security leaks. Cornyn and McCain were among those leading the calls. Still, it was a rare reprieve for the administration when Republican leaders spoke to reporters on Tuesday and glossed over the Justice Department's potential constitutional violations.

The country has now seen "the lengths to which the administration is willing to go to quiet the voices of its critics," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). But he did not list as an example the AP subpoenas. Instead, he pointed to the IRS case and alleged abuses by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission.

While ignoring the Justice Department's probe of leakers, McConnell chided the press for not paying more attention to his examples. He then cited the IRS, not the Justice Department, as the most powerful federal agency.

"I'm not being critical of all of you, but most of you haven't paid much attention to any of that. But now I think you get it, and I think the American people get it because everybody understands what the IRS is -- many people think the most powerful agency of the federal government with the ability to literally put people out of business."
On this, we are in complete agreement - Mayhem

For their part, House Republican leaders haven't pounced on the issue, either. Neither House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nor House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has weighed in directly, though spokespeople for both have commented.

Even Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who relentlessly pursued Holder amid the Fast and Furious investigation, called the Justice Department's move "obviously disturbing" but otherwise put the focus back on the other issues that Republicans plan to keep being outraged about.

"Coming within a week of revelations that the White House lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks NOT! and the IRS targeted conservative Americans for their political beliefs, Americans should take notice that top Obama administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don’t have to answer to anyone," Issa said in a statement. "I will work with my fellow House chairmen on an appropriate response to Obama administration officials."
 

CptHa

I eat, sleep, and live FreeOnes!
I'm willing to bet there is some legal justification for the taps in the Patriot Act.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I'm willing to bet there is some legal justification for the taps in the Patriot Act.

I'm willing to bet that you have been bitching about the Patriot Act since it's inception.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I have, but it still renders this "scandal" toothless.

For a moment there I wasn't sure if I had responded to you or CptHa

Anyway, let me try and make my position on all of this clear. Obama is the second democrat president in the past 20 years. One of them endured impeachment. I am a conservative, leaning more Libertarian everyday. I DO NOT want to see this reach the level that it could bring the ugliness of impeachment again. I am not sitting back tapping my fingers hoping that the Obama administration falls like a house of cards. I try and put the best interest of the country first. No I do not support president Obama's policies but in the grand scheme of things a scandal that that could lead to impeachment will damage the country on such a level that we may not have any faith in anyone we elected or the process as a whole. Obama won, I will support the things I can and voice my disagreement when I feel strongly about it. I do not want to see the past 2 democrat presidents go through a partisan reaming by republicans Short of selling secrets to China, president Obama should be allowed to carry out his term without all of the partisan political point scoring.

I do think Holder needs to go, if for nothing else I think he is too firmly entrenched at the DOJ and a fresh face would do us all good.
 

xfire

@ChrisFreemanX
For a moment there I wasn't sure if I had responded to you or CptHa

Anyway, let me try and make my position on all of this clear. Obama is the second democrat president in the past 20 years. One of them endured impeachment. I am a conservative, leaning more Libertarian everyday. I DO NOT want to see this reach the level that it could bring the ugliness of impeachment again. I am not sitting back tapping my fingers hoping that the Obama administration falls like a house of cards. I try and put the best interest of the country first. No I do not support president Obama's policies but in the grand scheme of things a scandal that that could lead to impeachment will damage the country on such a level that we may not have any faith in anyone we elected or the process as a whole. Obama won, I will support the things I can and voice my disagreement when I feel strongly about it. I do not want to see the past 2 democrat presidents go through a partisan reaming by republicans Short of selling secrets to China, president Obama should be allowed to carry out his term without all of the partisan political point scoring.

I do think Holder needs to go, if for nothing else I think he is too firmly entrenched at the DOJ and a fresh face would do us all good.

Fast and Furious should have forced Holder out the door, but for some reason Obama loves him some Holder. I agree, a new AG would do a world of good. I can't imagine a nomination getting by the Senate unscathed, though.
 

Straight Shooter

1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
They didnt wiretap the AP. The phone records don't include the substance of the calls- they're just a written tally of who called whom and how long the calls lasted.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
They didnt wiretap the AP. The phone records don't include the substance of the calls- they're just a written tally of who called whom and how long the calls lasted.

OK fair enough....if we can believe them. Regardless, it's still a violation of the constitution. The Patriot Act needs to be rescinded. I remember when Bush did shit like this after 9-11 and everyone on the left was up in arms about it. I know I was....were you? I'd tend to think the answer is "yes"....no?? :dunno:
 

Straight Shooter

1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
OK fair enough....if we can believe them. Regardless, it's still a violation of the constitution. The Patriot Act needs to be rescinded. I remember when Bush did shit like this after 9-11 and everyone on the left was up in arms about it. I know I was....were you? I'd tend to think the answer is "yes"....no?? :dunno:

Wiretapping is whole other thing, it's much more serious and from what we know they only collected phone numbers. For conservatives, they can't complain about this if they strongly support the Patriot Act. For Liberals and libertarians, they should be up in arms about this. I was watching Rachel Maddow last night and she was concerned about this and had the AP's attorney on for an interview. I don't believe she speaks for the left but so far that's all I've heard
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Wiretapping is whole other thing, it's much more serious and from what we know they only collected phone numbers. For conservatives, they can't complain about this if they strongly support the Patriot Act. For Liberals and libertarians, they should be up in arms about this. I was watching Rachel Maddow last night and she was concerned about this and had the AP's attorney on for an interview. I don't believe she speaks for the left but so far that's all I've heard

Wiretaps can be issued by subpoena under the Patriot Act in exactly the same manner that these call records were done so it's a very short step to take if the president deems it to be necessary. Both are unconstitutional. Now, similar methods have been employed by both the Bush and Obama administrations in the name of "national security". One might defend either chief executive's actions since he is responsible for executing laws and not making them. However, none of the tenets of the Patriot Act are compatible with either the first or fourth amendments and should be rejected on principle in my opinion. It doesn't appear that either any conservative or liberal POTUS seems to feel that way and that is indeed disappointing.

I agree with you about anyone who would have supported Bush's use of the Patriot Act while condemning Obama's not really having a leg to stand on. I'd also say that Rachel Maddow is a fairly good barometer of what the most liberal factions of those on the left would represent and I'm glad she is on record as being opposed to these types of infringements on our civil liberties....whether carried out by Bush or Obama.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Wiretaps can be issued by subpoena under the Patriot Act in exactly the same manner that these call records were done so it's a very short step to take if the president deems it to be necessary. Both are unconstitutional. Now, similar methods have been employed by both the Bush and Obama administrations in the name of "national security". One might defend either chief executive's actions since he is responsible for executing laws and not making them. However, none of the tenets of the Patriot Act are compatible with either the first or fourth amendments and should be rejected on principle in my opinion. It doesn't appear that either any conservative or liberal POTUS seems to feel that way and that is indeed disappointing.

I agree with you about anyone who would have supported Bush's use of the Patriot Act while condemning Obama's not really having a leg to stand on. I'd also say that Rachel Maddow is a fairly good barometer of what the most liberal factions of those on the left would represent and I'm glad she is on record as being opposed to these types of infringements on our civil liberties....whether carried out by Bush or Obama.

The Patriot Act is the internment camp of legislation.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Jagger deserves credit for his intellectual honesty in starting this thread. In light of recent developments, I think this is germane to discussions going on now.

And yet the media still adore Obama.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Jagger deserves credit for his intellectual honesty in starting this thread. In light of recent developments, I think this is germane to discussions going on now.

And yet the media still adore Obama.

The medias were and are run by a lot of Obama muppets as well as Obama kool aid drinkers.
 
Top