Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Between this and the IRS scandal, this is not a good week for the Obama administration. This one is pretty bad:

"The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters."

Yikes. Here's the context surround this:

"The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
...
Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented."

Fucking with the press is something that should never ever be done. What happened here is Nixonesque and I'm not liking it. I think this is one of the worst scandals under the Obama admin (please don't invoke unrelated shit like F&F) and I think it will only get worse as more info starts to come out. The GOP now has its second true scandal since the election in the course of a week.

Truly disturbing few days...and I imagine it's only going to get worse and more disturbing.

At 5/13/13 09:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Fast and Furious, Bengahzi, Drone Strikes on US citizens without TRIAL in civilian zones, and the complete lack of discipline in the Secret Service.

Hope and change!

Thank you so much for doing the very thing I asked you not to do in the OP, a mere 3 posts up, which you had an hour to read.

At 5/13/13 09:33 PM, WadeFulp wrote: The major thing I noticed with all of this is the liberal media is finally turning on Obama and getting angry and starting to run these stories and ask questions.

Well let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet. Stuff like this has the propensity to become more and more disconcerting as time goes on but there's no evidence thus farthat Obama approved of this and/or was micromanaging the operation.

Let's also be clear that this was likely all done legally and may very well turn out to be a harmless investigation to weed out a leaker in the CIA. I'm a cynic and I always believe the most likely worst scenario though, so don't let my bias influence you.

At 5/13/13 09:13 PM, Feoric wrote: Thank you so much for doing the very thing I asked you not to do in the OP, a mere 3 posts up, which you had an hour to read.

You can always count on folks like Tony to put the absolute worst face on conservatism possible in 2 posts or less.

Also have to scratch my head at Wade's conspiracy like post...of course the news is reporting these stories because they're, ya know, news? Is it just because they weren't doing wall to wall coverage on non-scandals like Benghazi like FOX News did? Or they had the audacity to report things this president actually did right?

I dunno...the state of politics in this country really annoys me. It's a bunch of folks acting like dishonest sports fans who only attack the other guy and act like their team is perfection incarnate.

I'm pretty sure every President since Nixon has figured out how to get away with illegal activities; be as disconnected from them as possible. So Obama is probably gonna do the Ronald Reagan school of scandal control by saying "I don't know, it's someone else's fault" instead of the Nixon "I had nothing to do with it but I have hours upon hours of tapes which is hard evidence on me". Still this isn't as bad as what John F. Kennedy did where he used the FBI to go after the Steel Industry by raiding their homes and forcing them to keep the price of steel from getting too high.

At 5/13/13 09:52 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Of course because the taboo of questioning the Obama Administration in liberal media.

I'm calling bullshit on saying it's a taboo in the media seeing that even Jimmy Carter has criticized him.

Based on the sorry state of our intelligence system since 2000, I wouldn't be surprised if this was merely an attempt to gather intelligence from sources that seem to actually get it right.

At 5/13/13 09:44 PM, Feoric wrote:

Well let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet. Stuff like this has the propensity to become more and more disconcerting as time goes on but there's no evidence thus farthat Obama approved of this and/or was micromanaging the operation.

Probably not, but this isn't the first time Eric Holder has done things that would make Obama look bad. Also, this won't be the first time Obama will have to claim executive privilege to protect Holder's ass, if it turns out Holder did something illegal...again.

Let's also be clear that this was likely all done legally and may very well turn out to be a harmless investigation to weed out a leaker in the CIA. I'm a cynic and I always believe the most likely worst scenario though, so don't let my bias influence you.

I'm the same way. we'll just have to wait and see.

Kennedy may have done illegal activity but at least when the man did so it was usually harmless, and nothing illegal about banging women other than your wife, though immoral.

And I never understood Iran-Contra, so he funded a terrible human rights violating insurgency, terrible I know I won't down play that, but almost every president during the Cold War did shady dealings with shady people. Short-sighted yes, immoral, but practical at the end of the day. Sure the overall result was a failure so on that you can hold the man accountable.

And in regards to this I doubt Obama was actively engaged in these organizations. I mean it may have been CIA or FBI who were behind this and lets be honest.

If it was a covert operation, then why do the hell do we need to know about it? Look I'm all for freedom of Information but what purpose would this serve to be known other than allow sensitive information loose.

Sure maybe a few months down road when this info isn't relevant anymore release it, but unless there was a screw up that cost innocent lives (again that term can be misconstrued) then there's a responsibility on the government's part to give out that information. But if there wasn't, then keep it under wraps.

Impeachment

At 5/14/13 02:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Impeachment

You need 2/3rds of the Senate on board for a conviction. The only way that the GOP can get a 2/3rds majority is if they win every single open seat in 2014 and get lucky enough to have seven additional Democrats to retire/die and get entirely replaced by Republicans.

At 5/14/13 02:48 PM, Feoric wrote: You need 2/3rds of the Senate on board for a conviction. The only way that the GOP can get a 2/3rds majority is if they win every single open seat in 2014 and get lucky enough to have seven additional Democrats to retire/die and get entirely replaced by Republicans.

I know that. Since both parties claim to represent the people, and keep the president in check, this should not be an issue at all ;)

Doesn't the patriot act allow for this?

I'm going to guess that Republicans are going to smack Holder around like a pinata, and the Democrats are going to let Holder play the part of the whipping boy. meanwhile, the Patriot Act will still be there and this warrant-less wiretapping will become the new normal.

At 5/14/13 06:04 PM, MOSFET wrote: Doesn't the patriot act allow for this?

Patriot Act is illegal too. Throw all this cunts in prison

At 5/14/13 07:58 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Patriot Act is illegal too.

It's legal. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole other point, but in terms of pure legality? Yes, it is purely legal, Congress passed it, President Bush signed it into law. It's legal, but certainly not moral, nor in keeping with the spirit of our country I agree.

At 5/14/13 08:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's legal. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole other point, but in terms of pure legality? Yes, it is purely legal, Congress passed it, President Bush signed it into law. It's legal, but certainly not moral, nor in keeping with the spirit of our country I agree.

Ok, it's legal. But not lawful.

See, in the legal world, there's what called "precedent". See, the Patriot Act was passed in the early 2000's. The Bill of Rights, and the constitution were put into law give or take 200 years before that. Therefore, those laws supercede any laws that come later. Unless of course, the Bill of Rights is amended, but that didn't happen. So the legality of the Patriot Act is tenuous at best.

At 5/14/13 10:35 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Kennedy may have done illegal activity but at least when the man did so it was usually harmless,

Sending the FBI to raid the homes of people to terrorize them into doing your bidding isn't harmless.

and nothing illegal about banging women other than your wife, though immoral.

Well yah.

And I never understood Iran-Contra, so he funded a terrible human rights violating insurgency, terrible I know I won't down play that, but almost every president during the Cold War did shady dealings with shady people. Short-sighted yes, immoral, but practical at the end of the day. Sure the overall result was a failure so on that you can hold the man accountable.

The problem with it was that Congress had already ordered the President to stop arming the rebels and on top of this they were dealing with Islamic Iran, trying to sell them arms so they would release hostages. The basic notion probably wouldn't have been controversial but the way it was carried out was.

And in regards to this I doubt Obama was actively engaged in these organizations. I mean it may have been CIA or FBI who were behind this and lets be honest.

Well they were, the question is how much control he had over this.

If it was a covert operation, then why do the hell do we need to know about it? Look I'm all for freedom of Information but what purpose would this serve to be known other than allow sensitive information loose.

Leakages have happened all the time. Just look at the Pentagon papers.

At 5/14/13 08:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: See, in the legal world, there's what called "precedent". See, the Patriot Act was passed in the early 2000's. The Bill of Rights, and the constitution were put into law give or take 200 years before that.

Nothing in the US Consitution protects one's right to a private communication.

At 5/14/13 08:58 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 5/14/13 10:35 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

Sending the FBI to raid the homes of people to terrorize them into doing your bidding isn't harmless.

Not familiar with this one I'd have to look it up not discrediting you or anything.

The problem with it was that Congress had already ordered the President to stop arming the rebels and on top of this they were dealing with Islamic Iran, trying to sell them arms so they would release hostages. The basic notion probably wouldn't have been controversial but the way it was carried out was.

Right, but again, it's illegal, is it therefore automatically immoral, not to say it wasn't because in the end it was, but was it the man's intention for them to slaughter innocents? Hell I'd consider Ajax worse. Sending in CIA to set up a puppet government that oppressed it's people so much so to the point that it burst into Islamic Fury once the people became impassioned enough.

And again, it's not like Reagan had any control over the Contra's, he just gave them money because they were anti-communist. It's short sighted as hell but he did it with some what good intentions. That being said once it became known they were as terrible as can be, it becomes wrong to continue to aid them and that is where I take issue with it.

Leakages have happened all the time. Just look at the Pentagon papers.

Doesn't make it any less important just because they're frequent, that doesn't apply to crime. I mean what if this was information on a homegrown terrorist cell that the powers at be were so close to capturing and they just needed one more month because they were all going to meet up with the head honcho who has Al Qaeda ties.

Then such information is made public and the group disperses and immediately attacks as a panicked quick reaction.

At 5/14/13 09:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Nothing in the US Consitution protects one's right to a private communication.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

4th Amendment

I think that there is a strong argument to be made that the 4th Amendment protects private communication, at least in the form of emails, phone calls, etc. because what are "papers" in this context? Your letters. The only way to send information and communicate back when the Bill of Rights was written was through writing. Since then, we have invented other ways to communicate with people, so shouldn't the protection of the 4th Amendment against searches and seizures of your letters carry over to these new forms of communication that directly replaced letters?

I'd like to take the time out to bring the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 to your attention. It was a proposed media shield law which would have required a court order to subpoena telephone records of journalists. It failed and was withdrawn in 2008.

Here's a fun experiment: check out the House roll call and the Senate roll call and cross reference all the names here with all the people speaking out in light of this story. Wow, look at that! Go to the House roll call and go down to the noes. Weird, do I see Issa? Darrell Issa? The guy who is hosting an investigation this week into the very thing he voted against?

Here's a fun Fox article:

"Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who served in the Bush administration, said Tuesday that the Justice Department is "obligated" to investigate leaks of classified information that may pose a threat to national security. Gonzales, however, declined to elaborate further, noting that the facts of the DOJ's investigation are still emerging.

Gonzales called such probes "fairly unusual," but said they are necessary if information given to journalists relates to "something that is threatening the national security of our country or the lives of American citizens.

"Let's say that a publication runs a story identifying the names of CIA agents overseas," Gonzales told FoxNews.com. "Obviously that's a violation of law and a serious breach of national security. In that case, the department would feel obligated to do everything it possibly could to uncover the leak.""

Gonzales is probably not the best person to talk about the topic of leaks. Fox deserves some credit, though, for managing to find the worst possible people to comment on the current headlines.

At 5/14/13 11:48 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I think that there is a strong argument to be made that the 4th Amendment protects private communication, at least in the form of emails, phone calls, etc. because what are "papers" in this context?

Letters are sent on your property in a sealed envelope. They have both subjective and objective privacy with direct standing.

Phone calls and emails are made on others' property and neither contain a security measure (lest it be actively added). They have subjective privacy, but little to no objective privacy and only indirect standing.

Also, much of the 4th Amendment is limited to the restriction of such things being used in court, especially on the privacy issue, and not to the restriction of the act itself.

At 5/14/13 08:37 AM, Korriken wrote: Probably not, but this isn't the first time Eric Holder has done things that would make Obama look bad. Also, this won't be the first time Obama will have to claim executive privilege to protect Holder's ass, if it turns out Holder did something illegal...again.

It's looking like Holder had nothing to do with this. So it's looking like the higest this goes (barring a massive coverup) is to the deputy AG James Cole.

Just to explain this a bit so there's no confusion, Holder fully recused himself early on in the investigation way before the subpoena process started. The reason for his recusal was that apparently the FBI was interviewing him as part of the investigation so I guess he (rightly) believed there would be a conflict of interest to be involved.

At 5/14/13 09:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Nothing in the US Consitution protects one's right to a private communication.

I do believe there's something in there about search and seizure and probable cause