Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

[Ernie S.]

It will be interesting to see how AG Holder spins THIS one.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

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.

Reporters have a right to confidential sources? Since when? snip

Since the ratification of the First Amendment on December 15, 1791. Got a problem with that?

 

[Ernie S.]

It will be interesting to see how AG Holder spins THIS one.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

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.

he'll have to show appropriate cause....

And a signed subpoena...

 

[velvtacheeze]

It will be interesting to see how AG Holder spins THIS one.

Reporters have a right to confidential sources? Since when? snip

Since the ratification of the First Amendment on December 15, 1791. Got a problem with that?

Yes, because their sources' identities are not protected under the amendment. What's the matter with you?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Reporters have a right to confidential sources?

Probably not something of Constitutional imperative, but that is irrelevant to the primary issue.

What special rights does he think he has?

I beleive it is commonly known as the 4th Amendment. You know the one which prevents unreaonble searches and seizures and requires a search warrant based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation...

 

[mamooth]

So you're good with the LEGAL DEPT committing a crime

A crime?

Seriously, are you retarded?

Classified info was leaked which aided terrorists. Hence, the government can get phone records to find out who did it. One can argue whether the subpoena was overly broad, but it's stupid to claim it was a crime.

The question is why you all only call such things a crime when a (D) is in office. Such an interesting double standard. Care to explain it? I mean, we know it's because you're all such loyal party herd beasts, but I'll be amused to hear what creative excuses you come up with to explain it.

Of course, there is an explanation that doesn't involve the righties being brainwashed party sheep. Perhaps you're all really running cover for Al Qaeda. Is that the case? After all, I'm pretty sure many of you would aid Al Qaeda, if it would somehow help you get Obama impeached. Going back to Iran/Contra, the GOP has a long history of aiding terrorists for political gain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, we know why the press has FINALLY started reporting on the corruption of the Obama administration....

 

[velvtacheeze]

Reporters have a right to confidential sources?

Probably not something of Constitutional imperative, but that is irrelevant to the primary issue.

What special rights does he think he has?

I beleive it is commonly known as the 4th Amendment. You know the one which prevents unreaonble searches and seizures and requires a search warrant based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation...

Irrelevant to the primary issue? Have you read the AP's pity party letter? It's clearly primary to them. They're getting the vapors over their supposed right to keep their sources secret. They think they clearly have a right to snoop around without the government being allowed to try and find out who in government is feeding them info. Sorry , but it doesn't work that way.

And how do you know it wasn't reasonable, and approved by a judge?

 

[Ernie S.]

Reporters have a right to confidential sources? Since when? snip

Since the ratification of the First Amendment on December 15, 1791. Got a problem with that?

Yes, because their sources' identities are not protected under the amendment. What's the matter with you?

They are, except for under VERY strict limitations.
Preventing the embarrassment of a Democrat President is not among them, no matter how AG Holder may spin it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Irrelevant to the primary issue? Have you read the AP's pity party letter? It's clearly primary to them.

I really do not care what has the AP thinks as primary. The reporters "privilege" has been rejected by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds in the past, although there is nothing which prevents a statutory privilge from being created.

And how do you know it wasn't reasonable, and approved by a judge?

Even search warrants are found to be improperly issued, and even I have gotten them thrown out as violative of the 4th. The issue is whether the subpoena was over broad. There will undoubtedly be a motion to quash the subpoena as being overbroad in that it obtained records from everyone and not merely the 5 reporters which were involved... and the article I read indicated it was unclear whether the subpoena was issued by a judge or by the grand jury.

 

[The Rabbi]

Was there a subpoena issued? WHo signed it? What information did it ask for? Because the subpoena must be very narrow to avoid a fishing trip by the gov't.
The gov't seems to have failed on these points.

We'll see what happens now. When the adminstration abused Fox News the rest of them figured it was Fox and they deserved it. But the AP is supposed to be one of the good guys and they just had their rights violated. Let's see how supportive the lamestream media remains.

 

[francoHFW]

Half cocked is the GOP way...the facts and the retractions never make it to the hater dupes...

 

[The Rabbi]

I see Eileen Sullivan was one of the reporters involved. She actually interviewed me not that long ago. I sent her an email asking whether our conversations would have been included in the seized material.

Fricking unbelievable.

 

[Antares]

You'd suck Obama's dick no matter what he did.

Half cocked is the GOP way...the facts and the retractions never make it to the hater dupes...

 

[Jroc]

The abuse of power never stops with this administration

 

[Spoonman]

is this even still America? You know, there was a reason James Madison wrote the 2nd amendment. and that reason is what our government has become today. he envisioned a populace that was equal in strength to the central government so when government became what it is today, the people could step in and correct the wrong. what we have today is exactly what he was trying to prevent. and government knows it and they are scared. they have wasted no effort to neutralize the public, vilify guns and gun ownership. the only other tool in our tool bag is the vote, and they already know that is ineffective with a partisan voting public and the fact that you are more likely to win a powerball jackpot then find a non corrupt politician to elect.

 

[Missourian]

It will be interesting to see how AG Holder spins THIS one.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

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.

he'll have to show appropriate cause....

Is "I needed to know who is leaking the truth to the press." appropriate cause?

 

[Polk]

why would the doj investigate an organization that has been friendly to their side.

news organizations aren't going to turn on obama

this will turn into a big misunderstanding.

Friendly to their side? That's a laugh.

 

[Polk]

More from the story:

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

So this looks like we are starting to understand Benghazi. An administration wedded to the idea that al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism are not threats will do anything to keep the reality from becoming known.

Paging George Orwell.

Next question: When will the first calls for impeachment/resignation come from the media?

This is rich.
DOJ under Obama is in the wrong for investigating the leak of classified information.
DOJ under Bush was totally in the clear when they were doing the same thing routinely just because they could.

 

[Lovebears65]

And there you have it. The beginning of the end of freedom of speech and press. Thanks Obama!!!

 

[Polk]

And there you have it. The beginning of the end of freedom of speech and press. Thanks Obama!!!

Because if the Justice Department has the power to investigate who leaked classified documents, can any of us truly be free?