Well, folks, I was just about to start today's "Newsbites" post by telling you about how Sammie (Mary's Sonata) is doing, but just as I was about to start typing, THIS popped up on Drudge:
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.
Well, folks... looks like I'm gonna be busy! More on Sammie later!
7 comments:
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe
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.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the news gathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's news gathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
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.
In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."
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.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.
Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.
Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general...
* NO JUDGE...??? I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO PERHAPS I'M OFF BASE HERE, BUT AREN'T SUBPOENAS LIKE WARRANTS IN THE SENSE THAT A JUDGE HAS TO SIGN OFF...??? (HEY... MAYBE NOT... I'LL CHECK IT OUT!)
...but it was not known if that happened in this case.
It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.
The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.
* AGAIN... (READ ON!)
It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.
Spokesmen in Machen's office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday.
The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.
A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.
* "ACCORDING TO THE RULES...???" WHAT ABOUT "ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION?"
The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."
* ONE... MORE... TIME... (READ ON!)
It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.
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 because the White House 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."
The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security.
Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.
* FOLKS...?!?!
The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April/May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.
* ONE FINAL TIME... (READ ON!)
It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.
* OR THE SEIZING...
Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.
* RECAP... (*READ ON!
The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.
* "REQUESTED." SINCE WHEN DO ADMINISTRATION "REQUESTS" OF THE PRESS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW...???
Brennan also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.
* UNLESS ONE HAPPENS TO BE THE AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA AND COLLEAGUES SERVING WITH HIM WHO HAPPEN TO BE IN BENGHAZI.
* FOLKS... WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE...?!?!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-conservatives-in-2010/
The targeting of conservatives by the IRS...
* FOLKS... THESE ARE THE FIRST SEVEN WORDS OF AN ABC NEWS STORY; WHAT HAS BECOME OF OUR AMERICA?
...started earlier and was more extensive than the IRS acknowledged last week...
* ONE... MORE... TIME... (*SHUDDER*) FOLKS... THIS IS AN ABC NEWS STORY! THIS ISN'T FICTION!
...according to a draft IRS inspector general report obtained by ABC News.
* WHICH CAN BE FOUND VIA: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Appendix%20VI%20and%20Appendix%20VII.PDF
As we reported on “Good Morning America” this morning, the IRS began targeting “Tea Party or similar organizations” in March 2010.
* NOT 2011 AS THEY FIRST COPPED!
That was when the Cincinnati-based IRS unit responsible for overseeing the applications for tax exempt status starting using the phrases “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12″ to search for applications warranting greater scrutiny. During this first phase, 10 Tea Party cases were identified.
By April of 2010, 18 Tea Party organizations were targeted, including three that had already been approved for tax-exempt status.
By June 2011, the unit had flagged over 100 Tea Party-related applications...
* FOLKS... EVEN I AM LITERALLY STUNNED.
...and the criteria used to scrutinize organizations had grown considerably, flagging not just “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in group names, but also groups that were working on issues like “government debt,” “taxes” and even organizations making statements that “criticize how the country is being run.”
* GEEZUS...!!!
The report, done by the Inspector General for the IRS, also shows that senior IRS officials in Washington was aware of what was going on as early as August 4, 2011...
* "SENIOR IRS OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON..." "AS EARLY AS AUGUST 4, 2011..." FOLKS... THIS STORY BROKE YESTERDAY! TODAY IS MAY 13, 2013!
...when, according to the report, the IRS chief counsel held a meeting with the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements unit “so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.”
* THIS IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE RUNNING AMERICA.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-admits-to-targeting-conservative-groups-but-were-they-also-leaking/
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible. “There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
* MELODRAMATIC? SURE. SELF-SERVING? OBVIOUSLY! BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THIS GROUP APPARENTLY WAS THE VICTIM OF A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CRIME - A VICTIM OF THE IRS... THE OBAMA IRS SINCE JANUARY 2009.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
(*SHRUG*)
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
* APPARENTLY SO! (READ ON!)
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted: “‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email."
The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of non-profits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo."
* THE PLOT THICKENS...
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/
Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal.
Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.
For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention.
* SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON PAID NO ATTENTION.
During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.
* PRESIDENT BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SENT NO HELP.
And after? [T]he Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.
* YEP. THAT'S THE ONLY SCENARIO THAT FITS... THAT MAKES SENSE. THEY BET THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT... AND THEY DID. OBAMA WAS RE-ELECTED. DEMOCRATS MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE SENATE - NAY, STRENGTHENED THEIR CONTROL! IF AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE "HE WHOSE NAME DARE NOT BE MENTIONED" SAYS, "BILL, YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG," IT WON'T MATTER. OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING IMPEACHED. HE'S GOING TO BE OUR PRESIDENT THRU ALL OF THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR, AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT.
So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time.
* BUT THINK BACK TO THE "IMPRESSION" YOU HAD BACK THEN... THE "IMPRESSION" YOU GOT VIA WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID AND WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTED. WASN'T THAT "IMPRESSION" THAT OBAMA AND HRC WERE ON TOP OF THINGS...?!
Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in?
* NO! THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT QUESTION! THE QUESTION IS... WHO NIXED ANY TIMELY RESCUE ATTEMP? (THE NAME... OR RATHER NAMES...?!)
[W]ho forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?
* AND WHY WASN'T CLINTON THE ONE TO MAKE THE ROUNDS...? IF NOT CLINTON... WHY NOT PANETTA...? IF NOT PANETTA... WHY NOT THEN-CIA DIRECT PATRAEUS...? IF NOT PATRAEUS... (WELL... YOU GET THE IDEA...) MY ANSWER? BECAUSE RICE WAS EXPENDABLE. RICE WAS WILLING TO RISK GETTING CAUGHT IN THE LIES SHE WAS TELLING... I'M GUESSING BECAUSE SHE WAS ASSURED BY "HER SUPERIORS" THAT "SHE'D BE TAKEN CARE OF" IF WORSE CAME TO WORSE AND THE TRUTH CAME OUT.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. (Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter...”)
* SEE PREVIOUS NEWSBITES/STAND ALONE POSTS. WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT THE AFOREMENTIONED "PRIVATE SESSION WITH CERTAIN REPORTERS" BECAUSE SOMEONE SPILLED THE BEANS!
“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”
“Well,” the "carney" said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …” Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.
Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.
* BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A LIE! WE KNOW CLINTON'S MINIONS RE-WROTE THE TALKING POINTS... TWELVE RE-WRITES TO BE PRECISE!
For the record, this is what the CIA “generated”:
“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.
And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning.
And...
(*DRUM ROLL*)
...the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat in the Central Intelligence Agency. (The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.)
With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all.
The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.
* WE SHALL SEE!
Post a Comment