Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

[Ernie S.]

Friendly to their side? That's a laugh.

Up to this point, the press has essentially been part of the Obama administration. They were crucial as a campaign mechanism to reelect Obama. CNN, ABNBCBS, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, Washington Post all openly campaigned for Obama and were very careful to spike any story that would harm him, whilst hyping stories about the opposition to absurd extremes.

MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times sucked Obama's cock openly while declaring him to be god.

The press hasn't been "friendly" to Obama, the press is part of "Team Obama."

That the fool spied on his faithful servants displays what a fucking moron he is. Obama is so corrupt that he couldn't help himself. Corruption is in his blood. But going after his fawning press was stupid beyond belief.

Benghazi was spiked last year. The IRS would have been spiked last year - now even the Washington Post is reporting on both.

Obama is toast - not for the right reasons, but because he crossed the press, and they won't cover-up his corruption from this point forward.

obama HAD to play his reelection like that. Romney had no divorce records to unseal.

 

[Polk]

Friendly to their side? That's a laugh.

Up to this point, the press has essentially been part of the Obama administration. They were crucial as a campaign mechanism to reelect Obama. CNN, ABNBCBS, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, Washington Post all openly campaigned for Obama and were very careful to spike any story that would harm him, whilst hyping stories about the opposition to absurd extremes.

MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times sucked Obama's cock openly while declaring him to be god.

The press hasn't been "friendly" to Obama, the press is part of "Team Obama."

That the fool spied on his faithful servants displays what a fucking moron he is. Obama is so corrupt that he couldn't help himself. Corruption is in his blood. But going after his fawning press was stupid beyond belief.

Benghazi was spiked last year. The IRS would have been spiked last year - now even the Washington Post is reporting on both.

Obama is toast - not for the right reasons, but because he crossed the press, and they won't cover-up his corruption from this point forward.

Most of the stories getting coverage right now were things the Bush administration also did. The difference is Obama is being bashed by the press for them, while the press were cheerleaders for Bush doing the same thing.

 

[Polk]

You'll also note that the government had said that there had been no terrorists threats during that time. Why did they say that if it wasn't true? How do you justify tapping phone of people other that the reporters involved in the story.
Sorry, but this "most transparent administration in history" has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

You say that because you don't want to compromise intel assets. Same reason undercover police officers don't walk around wearing a badge.

In this case though, the truth didn't fit the rhetoric, so it must be hidden, at least until 11/7.

You can believe whatever you want, but that won't make it true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Most of the stories getting coverage right now were things the Bush administration also did. The difference is Obama is being bashed by the press for them, while the press were cheerleaders for Bush doing the same thing.

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

 

[Seawytch]

How soon they forget...

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?csp=34

And all without a subpoena.

Ah, the days of yesteryear...when the Bush ball lickers said: "I've got nothing to hide"

 

[RandallFlagg]

Most of the stories getting coverage right now were things the Bush administration also did. The difference is Obama is being bashed by the press for them, while the press were cheerleaders for Bush doing the same thing.

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

Thanks for the levity!!

"Toddler-In-Chief"........I'll have to remember that one!!! Guess he really was riding that skate-board!!

 

[Polk]

Most of the stories getting coverage right now were things the Bush administration also did. The difference is Obama is being bashed by the press for them, while the press were cheerleaders for Bush doing the same thing.

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

Stop with the deflection. If the press is in tank for Obama, it's hard to explain why he's received much more criticism for doing the same things Bush did.

 

[Polk]

How soon they forget...

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

USATODAY.com - NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

And all without a subpoena.

Ah, the days of yesteryear...when the Bush ball lickers said: "I've got nothing to hide"

It goes further than that. While that program didn't listen or record conversations, there was another NSA program that didn't only see who journalists were calling, but also recorded the convos.

 

[Seawytch]

Most of the stories getting coverage right now were things the Bush administration also did. The difference is Obama is being bashed by the press for them, while the press were cheerleaders for Bush doing the same thing.

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

Stop with the deflection. If the press is in tank for Obama, it's hard to explain why he's received much more criticism for doing the same things Bush did.

Except with a subpoena, unlike Bush.

I said back then to those "I ain't doin' nothin' " folks...just wait until Bush's rules apply to a Dem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

{Because Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation. If President Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press.”} - RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

What more is there to say?

 

[RandallFlagg]

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

Stop with the deflection. If the press is in tank for Obama, it's hard to explain why he's received much more criticism for doing the same things Bush did.

Except with a subpoena, unlike Bush.

I said back then to those "I ain't doin' nothin' " folks...just wait until Bush's rules apply to a Dem.

My apologies, I mistakenly posted my reply for another post here. I will now set out to correct my response to you.....

As required by provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments of 2008 (FISA) and the Patriot Act (as amended in 2005), the Department of Justice revealed to Congress the end of last month the number of applications for eavesdropping received and rejected by the FISA court.

To no one’s surprise (least of all to the architects and builders of the already sprawling surveillance state), the letter addressed to Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reports that in 2012, of the 1,789 requests made by the government to monitor the electronic communications of citizens, not a single one was rejected.


See, you can blame Bush all you want. That's your prerogative. However, how do you explain the 1,789 requests made by YOUR guy? And, more importantly, how do you explain the democrats, so incensed by this "law", that have REFUSED to change one word of it??

 

[Katzndogz]

Is anyone foolish enought to think that AP is the only press agency that obama did this to?

 

[Mustang]

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.

Weren't the phone records obtained AFTER a subpoena was issued?

Yet, for some reason, conservatives have a problem with that despite the fact that they didn't have a problem with Bush authorizing wiretaps without a FISA court warrant?

Could someone explain that to me?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

I'm the last person you want to cry "party sheeple" to.


You're excuse is fucking pathetic, but nice attempt at spinning as; we were pissed when you did it, so we get to do it.

except we didn't do it

hack

 

[The Rabbi]

Most of the stories getting coverage right now were things the Bush administration also did. The difference is Obama is being bashed by the press for them, while the press were cheerleaders for Bush doing the same thing.

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

Stop with the deflection. If the press is in tank for Obama, it's hard to explain why he's received much more criticism for doing the same things Bush did.

Except he didnt. Well, he did some of the same things. Gitmo? The thing that libs bashed Bush for and Obama has continued. Afghanistan? Bush got bashed for winning, Obama gets kudos for losing. Iraq, ditto. Drones, ditto.
Yes, Bush got attacked for doing what Obama gets praised for doing.

 

[Mustang]

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.

You're asking for too much. Want an example. One morning, either early this year or late last year, I had Bill Bennett's show in the background when he was interviewing some supposed terrorism expert (whose name I don't recall). At one point, the man casually stated that that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were collaborating with the terrorists. Well, that was not only over the line, IMHU, it was WAY over the line. I fully expected Bill Bennett to challenge the statement if for no other reason than he's not merely some RW talk radio entertainer yutz. He was once a cabinet secretary. Guess what? He didn't offer one word of protest. He didn't say anything as if there was nothing about it that even challenged his sensibilities. That was one moment when I just knew that the RW had lost all perspective AND credibility.

 

[RandallFlagg]

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!

Hmmm, sounds kind of hollow.

I think you'll need more to save the toddler in chief.

Stop with the deflection. If the press is in tank for Obama, it's hard to explain why he's received much more criticism for doing the same things Bush did.

Except he didnt. Well, he did some of the same things. Gitmo? The thing that libs bashed Bush for and Obama has continued. Afghanistan? Bush got bashed for winning, Obama gets kudos for losing. Iraq, ditto. Drones, ditto.
Yes, Bush got attacked for doing what Obama gets praised for doing.

Well, one MUST remember that it is Obama is in office now. "Do as I SAY, not as I DO" or, as he stated in a recent address to graduating students: {paraphrased}

"Don't be swayed by those claiming "big government" tyranny"


Right....I can only imagine Richard Nixon giving that same address......

 

[Ernie S.]

You say that because you don't want to compromise intel assets. Same reason undercover police officers don't walk around wearing a badge.

In this case though, the truth didn't fit the rhetoric, so it must be hidden, at least until 11/7.

You can believe whatever you want, but that won't make it true.

Ditto, polkemon.

 

[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.

Weren't the phone records obtained AFTER a subpoena was issued?

Yet, for some reason, conservatives have a problem with that despite the fact that they didn't have a problem with Bush authorizing wiretaps without a FISA court warrant?

Could someone explain that to me?

have you seen a subpoena? Only speculation on who may have signed off on one.

 

[Mustang]

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

Weren't the phone records obtained AFTER a subpoena was issued?

Yet, for some reason, conservatives have a problem with that despite the fact that they didn't have a problem with Bush authorizing wiretaps without a FISA court warrant?

Could someone explain that to me?

have you seen a subpoena? Only speculation on who may have signed off on one.

In such cases, it's the AG who signs one.