Hu Hewitt with a scoop.http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/15/would-you-be...
Hewitt and Nunez are idiots. Subpoenaing the AP's phone records may be an overreach of prosecutorial power (approved by a judge, apparently,) but it isn't wiretapping.And if Congressmen talked to AP reporters by telephone from the congressional cloakroom or anywhere else, that doesn't mean Justice tapped their phones.Why do you swallow and regurgitate this nonsense?Exodus 20:16.
Far be it from me to tell you to stop contorting yourself to defend these scumbags, Felix. Just be careful--you might strain something.
Only Three ways to get the Wiretaps, they instead did Illegally.No Grand Jury involved, No Judge involved. That leaves Holder.I wonder who Holder sacrifices in the end for the BLANTANT! use of the will-be-alleged "Patriot Act" Illegal wiretapping.
Far be it from me to tell you to stop contorting yourself to defend these scumbags, Felix. Just be careful--you might strain something.You are confused. I am neither contorting nor defending. It's a simple fact. A legal subpoena to seize phone records isn't the same thing as an illegal wiretap. One is a record of all calls made and received; the other is a recording of all conversations. When the Justice Department seizes the AP's phone records, it's not wiretapping the phones of congresmen, or anyone else, who call the AP.Conflating the two is stupid. The difference is as obvious as the difference between phone call and a phone bill.
Only Three ways to get the Wiretaps, they instead did Illegally.You are confused. justice didn't wiretap the AP. It didnt record conversations. It seized phone records.No Grand Jury involved, No Judge involved. That leaves Holder.Holder has nothing to do with it. He recused himself from the leak investigation a year AG because he's a potential suspect. The case is being handled by the D.C. U.S. Attorney.I wonder who Holder sacrifices in the end for the BLANTANT! use of the will-be-alleged "Patriot Act" Illegal wiretapping.Again, it's not wiretapping. try to pay closer attention to the facts. Anyway, I'm recalling that you were for "Paatriot Act" wiretapping before you were against it. Your outrage rings hollow and is transparently partisan.
Seizing AP Phone Records without Legal Authority.There, fixed it for you.
This AP phone records thing is bad enough as it is. Why exaggerate? Why lie? It's not about wiretapping. And Justice has the legal authority to execute subpoenas and seize phone records.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/politics/facing-trio-of...The regulation requires subpoenas for reporters’ tolling records — logs of calls made and received — to be narrowly focused and undertaken only after other ways of obtaining information are exhausted. Under normal circumstances, news organizations are to be notified ahead of time so they can negotiate or ask a judge to quash the subpoena, but the regulation allows exceptions, in which case journalists must be notified no later than 90 days afterward.The questions are these:Was the subpoena sufficiently narrow in focus?Was the seizure undertaken only after exhausting other methods?I undertand that's not as sexy as "illegal wiretap!" "Obama bugged the congressional cloakroom!" and "what did the President know and when did he know it?" but those are the real issues here. You're doing yourself no favors my making shirt up. You can't blame folks for saying Republicans are on a political witch hunt when they act like they're on a witch hunt, ignoring the facts.Which weighs more: a witch or a duck?
5 reporters involved in the story. Records of 100 Reporters Seized.Narrow focus my Duck!
5 reporters involved in the story. Records of 100 Reporters Seized.That's better. You'll get the hang of it.Not a wiretap. Not bugging Congress. Not illegal. Probably too wide a focus. Might be a violation of Justice Department regulation. Sort of a subjective call, though. Who's too say what's "too broad" or "too narrow" or "just right." And prosecutors always ask for more rather than less.100 reporters? The five reporters on the story each have at least three editors and/or supervisors and a few assistants among them. Not hard to reach 100. I asked this question on another board:You're the U.S. attorney assigned to find out who leaked the name of a CIA agent who infiltrated Al Qaeda to the AP. You've got three pieces of information: the story, the names of the reporters and their associates, and a list of people who knew about the CIA operation and the identity of the agent. (None of them are named Dick Cheney or Scooter Libby so the case is a tough one.) What do you do?
DECLASSIFIED!!!ZERO Grounds for Zero's AP phone records Seizures!!!......................"For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day. The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday. AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the unauthorized disclosure about an intelligence operation to stop al-Qaeda from detonating explosives aboard a U.S. airliner was among the most serious leaks he could remember, and justified secretly obtaining records from a handful of reporters and editors over a span of two months." That’s right, boys and girls. That sound you heard was the “national security” justification going POOF! The AP dutifully held back on reporting the story in order to protect national security and the Obama administration screwed them anyway. The AP reported the story only after it was made clear that the information wasn’t sensitive anymore. The information was going to be used for PR purposes by the Obama administration and the AP essentially stole their thunder. ..." - See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/05/why-did-the-doj-get-ap......
Exodus 20:16. You just got done saying that Winston Churchill has no relevance because he's dead.Now you go around citing Moses, who's been dead much longer.
"Far be it from me to tell you to stop contorting yourself to defend these scumbags, Felix.Pointing out the obvious fact that there is a difference between a legally obtained subpoena for phone records and a wiretap is considered "contortion"?"Just be careful--you might strain something."Like credibility?LOL
You are confused. I am neither contorting nor defending. Sure you are. Seizing documents from what used to be a free press is not the same as wiretapping, but by harping on the semantics involved with someone sexing up a violation of the First Amendment on a radio show, you're deflecting from the main point that the Constitutioal Scholar-in-Chief is crapping on the same Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend--twice.
Like credibility?Having my credibility questioned by a lemming for this toolbag administration is not much of a concern for me.
Seizing documents from what used to be a free press is not the same as wiretapping, but by harping on the semantics...Hold on. The difference between a legal seizure of phone records and illegal wiretaps isn't a semantic quibble. There's a huge difference between the two....you're deflecting from the main point that the Constitutioal Scholar-in-Chief is crapping on the same Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend--twiceNo, I am not. And besides, there's nothing at all unconstitutional about seizing the APs phone records in a criminal investigation. This isn't a violation of law. It's a violation of tradition. Law enforcement authorities subpoena journalists' record all the time. What's unusual and unprecedented about this case is that the DC US attorney didn't notify the AP ahead of time.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |