Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:44 PM May 2013

The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak.

There's a reason the AP is squalling like a cat on a hot tin roof over these subpoenas.

It's because the 'letter' they got from the government informing them of these subpoenas probably came from the grand jury investigating the Yemen leak. Note--The AP has not released this 'letter.'

Now, ask yourselves something. The AP writes a letter denouncing the subpoenas. But they don't release the 'letter' from the government.

The subpoenas, according to the AP, covered the "more than 20 lines associated with the agency. Among those were phones in the Associated Press offices, personal lines for reporters, and the AP's phone in the House of Representatives press gallery." Link

Now, why would a major news organization not release a 'letter' from the government? Because it isn't a 'letter.' It's from the grand jury, and I believe is covered under the DC circuit's secrecy rules--you can't publish a subpoena or summons to the grand jury, but you can describe it. And I don't think it's just about the subpoenas. I think some reporters got called to the grand jury.

So the investigation of who leaked info about a CIA operative on the ground (who had to move his family to safety) has moved to a grand jury.

What if the leak came from Congress? What if it was coordinated by a member of Congress, or their staff? That might explain why the AP phone records from the House of Reps gallery were subpoenaed.

It might explain why Republicans are suddenly quite quiet on 'investigating' the AP scandal. It also might explain why Senator Leahy called for an investigation, ('cause if I were a Democratic Senator, I might want that investigation, too..) and it might explain why Eric Holder had to recuse himself, since he might know the targets.

I want the AP to release the letter they got. Maybe some investigative journalist on this board might ask the AP for me?

I know this much--if a grand jury is involved, and a news organization isn't releasing certain info, then I'm gonna start asking more questions before I start bashing this administration. I might remember Ms. Judith Miller, and Scooter Libby. And I might wonder who in the House of Reps might have wanted to leak this info, and then blame the President for leaking the info--right before an election?

On edit--who would want to make President Obama look weak on foreign intelligence, right before the election, accusing him of leaking it for his own political gain--


The Times also reports that there is some anger within the intelligence community that both the plot and the use of an informant were revealed by the media. The first report on the failed mission came from the Associated Press, which was asked not to report on the story by the CIA. They did hold it for several days while the agent — who media reports call a "double agent," though there is no indication he was ever a true member of al-Qaeda — and his family were moved to a safe location within Saudi Arabia. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said there were concerns that leaks would discourage foreign intelligence services and other possible informants from working with the United States in the future, if the methods and sources for such operations were disclosed publicly.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/05/latest-underwear-bomber-was-actually-cia-spy/52080/



Anybody remember how in the Spring of last year, Romney was trying to up his foreign policy creds? It wasn't just the Olympics....he needed to make the President look weak in co-operation with the people who were in on this mission--the UK, and Saudi Arabia.

170 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The AP's being investigated by a grand jury for who they coordinated with in Congress over the leak. (Original Post) msanthrope May 2013 OP
This is going to circle right back to a Republican leaking classified information, yet once again. Ikonoklast May 2013 #1
That's what I'm thinking JustAnotherGen May 2013 #3
If that is true someone should go to jail this time. still_one May 2013 #56
Someone should go to jail for leaking a covert op. nt msanthrope May 2013 #62
The House of Reps AP phone wasn't subpoenaed for nothing...and why won't they release the 'letter?' msanthrope May 2013 #4
I am starting to wonder when the Republicans in Congress will start screaming in unison Ikonoklast May 2013 #7
Here's something interesting--it wasn't done by National Security Letter.... msanthrope May 2013 #19
I believe that was on purpose. Ikonoklast May 2013 #20
No Patriot Act or NDAA--plain old DC grand jury....and here's the thing on the letter msanthrope May 2013 #24
Yep. I'm willing bet there are some Republican undies getting fudged right about now. Ikonoklast May 2013 #29
ahhhhhh dreaming of perp walks Voice for Peace May 2013 #46
I hope so.. Cha May 2013 #99
I haven't been paying close attention & appreciate your OP here. Voice for Peace May 2013 #43
Yep. And the MSM will suddenly decide this story isn't "news worthy". n/t bushisanidiot May 2013 #38
+ 1 Berlum May 2013 #112
But will anyone be paying attention by then? efhmc May 2013 #113
That's where this is heading. harun May 2013 #123
I think you got it - all with due process - AP's cred will go down with the pubbies. freshwest May 2013 #128
I would love that JustAnotherGen May 2013 #2
Well, if I was an investigative journalist, I might ask why a major news organization msanthrope May 2013 #6
It will show just how far in the tank the AP is for them, sucking up to Republicans Ikonoklast May 2013 #9
Same here JustAnotherGen May 2013 #13
If the "letter" is actually a subpoena involving a Grand Jury truedelphi May 2013 #131
Yes--on the rest of thread there is a bit of a debate about that. I would like it answered, and msanthrope May 2013 #133
Yeah, ProSense May 2013 #5
And there you have it. DevonRex May 2013 #8
You know, we have investigative journalists on this board. I want some answers. nt msanthrope May 2013 #11
Hahaha!!!! DevonRex May 2013 #32
I have a confession--dyslexia forces me to use the spell check. When I don't, msanthrope May 2013 #33
I have a confession... DevonRex May 2013 #39
this whole three-pronged fusillade of bullshit against Obama MjolnirTime May 2013 #84
That's right. DevonRex May 2013 #87
DU Rec... SidDithers May 2013 #10
Oh, this is getting good... one_voice May 2013 #12
Shove over JustAnotherGen May 2013 #15
Yep... one_voice May 2013 #21
excellent analysis... chillfactor May 2013 #14
The bad economy, the failure of Occupy, etc. has made for some understandable disgruntlement, IMO. randome May 2013 #26
+1,000 - The Nabobs have been very false, disingenuous and condescending-NT Anansi1171 May 2013 #65
There's a lot of good thinkers on this board. Cha May 2013 #100
On one of the first threads about this the other day davidpdx May 2013 #102
This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information LanternWaste May 2013 #16
Probably a good policy davidpdx May 2013 #103
But...but...Obama....Holder...but...but MineralMan May 2013 #17
Facts are good, and one might wonder why the AP isn't showing a major one---the msanthrope May 2013 #22
The more facts the better, I say. MineralMan May 2013 #23
The letter from the government to the AP would have the code section under which msanthrope May 2013 #27
Could well be. I imagine it will be revealed in time. MineralMan May 2013 #31
OP claims "letter" is actually a Grand Jury Subpoena in a nat'l security case. Says AP can't leveymg May 2013 #36
Well, wait a second--has the AP said it isn't legally releaseable? Why are they being msanthrope May 2013 #45
Ah, but gang of 8 means the Majority and Minority Leaders plus Chair and Ranking Members of Intel Co hedda_foil May 2013 #95
Somehow, I don't see Boehner in that role, but Cantor? Wouldn't surprise me. n/t winter is coming May 2013 #109
They could redact it or they could state it is a GJ matter. Or they could say they can't say. randome May 2013 #52
I believe the OP is incorrect. Fed Rule of Cr P 6(e) states that a witness can reveal info re FedGJ leveymg May 2013 #64
Post 74 outlines the local rules exception and the grand juror exception. msanthrope May 2013 #75
Interesting. Very, very interesting. City Lights May 2013 #18
"Anybody remember how in the Spring... ProSense May 2013 #25
Oh--how interesting. Romney blamed Obama for the leak, and now, the AP is msanthrope May 2013 #30
Here's the AP email address: info@ap.org. Unless someone knows of a better one. randome May 2013 #28
I'm trying to find Gary Pruitt's...there's a 2nd letter he's not releasing, and msanthrope May 2013 #35
Here's the email I just sent. randome May 2013 #34
I got the DC desk email--- wdcdesk@ap.org msanthrope May 2013 #40
Thanks! I'll send one to that address, too! randome May 2013 #44
Curious ~ have you heard back on this?? n/t CaliGal May 2013 #151
Not a thing. nt msanthrope May 2013 #160
Pretty good speculation there... I hope you are right OKNancy May 2013 #37
k/r Dawson Leery May 2013 #41
thankyou! Whisp May 2013 #42
People have worked themselves into such a conspiracy frenzy about this President Voice for Peace May 2013 #49
I remember when the Clenis fascinated Democrats, as well as Republicans. msanthrope May 2013 #54
Let's hope this tidbit settles down all the freakazoids calling for Holder's head railsback May 2013 #47
It's amazing what comes out of the woodwork. nt msanthrope May 2013 #50
Probably Scooter Libby again.. those damn leakers Voice for Peace May 2013 #48
I also think it's highly likely that the leaker is a Republican. winter is coming May 2013 #51
More interesting is the role of the AP in this--if the leaker is a Republican, then msanthrope May 2013 #53
Looks like a vaible timeline, and points directly at a Republican operation. Ikonoklast May 2013 #60
Between this and the story about the Repubs deliberately falsifying emails re: Benghazi Number23 May 2013 #70
I was wondering how the AP confrimed the veracity of the "tip." Liberal In Texas May 2013 #156
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting n/t emulatorloo May 2013 #55
I am giving this a standing ovation. Very good news that is fit to print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anansi1171 May 2013 #57
This is why Senate Republican's are standing down on this Quixote1818 May 2013 #58
Precisely--this could be Gang of Eight. msanthrope May 2013 #61
exactly, msanthrope! hopemountain May 2013 #59
OP- Please cite a source for your claim that a subpoenaed witness cannot publish an subpoena leveymg May 2013 #63
You are forgetting the DC circuit local rules. msanthrope May 2013 #66
Local Ct. Rules don't trump Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure. leveymg May 2013 #67
If you look at rule 6e you will see the exception. And post 74 outlines msanthrope May 2013 #73
It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6). leveymg May 2013 #83
Well, if I am wrong about the rule, then why haven't they published? msanthrope May 2013 #90
If there's a sealed indictment, the subpoenas may also be sealed. The witness can talk about their leveymg May 2013 #106
You're conflating a few different things ...but again, why haven't they published? msanthrope May 2013 #110
When an indictment is sealed, the court docs - including the subpoenas - normally are, as well. leveymg May 2013 #126
Like I said....you are conflating a few different things. But you seem to have conceded the point msanthrope May 2013 #134
Put some links out, and I'll read it. leveymg May 2013 #140
I can't link off my Lexis account.*** msanthrope May 2013 #143
I have a Lexis Acct. and Pacer. leveymg May 2013 #144
No...I mean I cannot hotlink off this friggin' phone. If you are in Lexis, though, msanthrope May 2013 #146
Sounds like interesting bedtime reading! leveymg May 2013 #149
Nah...the Clinton grand jury report is what you want for bedtime. nt msanthrope May 2013 #150
I remember that 'proof'! LOL! randome May 2013 #153
In addition to the absence of support for such a claim, it seems that there is an absence of AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #68
My dear former IRS lawyer...would you care to look at 6e (3)(B)(5) in the DOJ handbook msanthrope May 2013 #74
If the very nature of the grand jury means that it operates in secrecy Number23 May 2013 #72
Then they should be upfront about that -state that they cannot publish because of that reason. randome May 2013 #78
I'm not sure that you read my response right. Number23 May 2013 #86
Msanthrope, I'd take one of you over 5 dozen of the Hair on Fire Brigade any damn day of the week Number23 May 2013 #69
Well said... SidDithers May 2013 #77
+1 SunSeeker May 2013 #89
K & R malaise May 2013 #71
judith Miller forever destroyed my faith in "free press" mainer May 2013 #76
Bravo. graham4anything May 2013 #79
Two days ago, Michael Isikoff made this point: ProSense May 2013 #80
Cui bono? cvoogt May 2013 #81
And the ratfucking allies who heap it on.....nt msanthrope May 2013 #82
Regarding the foreign policy creds: YES. DevonRex May 2013 #85
The title of the OP makes a concrete claim (AP's being investigated by GJ) then doesn't back it up. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #88
Um, a subpoena means investigation. As in, if you get a subpoena, do you msanthrope May 2013 #91
If it's a fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation I apologixe. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #92
Is "object" a legal term, defined by statute? nt msanthrope May 2013 #94
Thanks n/t cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #115
The M$M tried to slander it with the use of 'taps' Rex May 2013 #93
I really hope your correct. blackspade May 2013 #96
Just asking again Half-Century Man May 2013 #97
This is stupidly wrong Yo_Mama May 2013 #98
Actually, thank you for proving my point--where is that letter? They keep referring msanthrope May 2013 #105
Maybe the AP doesn't want to divulge the namrs morningfog May 2013 #107
Oh...watching it play out now? Awesome. nt msanthrope May 2013 #111
Yes, if the alternative is unfounded speculation morningfog May 2013 #120
That might be the funniest thing you've ever written to me! nt msanthrope May 2013 #135
They can redact or they can state they cannot publish. randome May 2013 #116
Very Informative OP, msanthrope.. Cha May 2013 #101
I hope it's Cantor, if he's in the Gang, is he? nt Ilsa May 2013 #104
I hope it is Issa. Rex May 2013 #119
That would be sweet! I don't know offhand Ilsa May 2013 #166
Excellent and informative post. Thank you. k&r n/t Laelth May 2013 #108
k&r... spanone May 2013 #114
"The AP's being investigated by a grand jury" michigandem58 May 2013 #117
Yes. You get a subpoena, you are being investigated. nt msanthrope May 2013 #147
Question for msanthrope pmorlan1 May 2013 #118
No, comrade, I am not a "Party official." Seriously, though, I do work for various msanthrope May 2013 #137
Thanks pmorlan1 May 2013 #145
There are some Party people on this site. I think it's up to them to say who msanthrope May 2013 #165
If Boomerang Tossing Were An Olympic Event cynzke May 2013 #121
Love yr description/analogy. truedelphi May 2013 #132
This thread makes me smile-Thanks for the information Gothmog May 2013 #122
Interesting Blog post pmorlan1 May 2013 #124
He makes the wrong point. randome May 2013 #125
In the bubble pmorlan1 May 2013 #127
'Sweeping attempt'. randome May 2013 #129
And of course, in a nation that is slipping into truedelphi May 2013 #130
Do you think we have a free press in practice? LiberalAndProud May 2013 #168
Your statements are not wrong, but the revolving door between industry truedelphi May 2013 #170
Let me get this straight.... GoCubsGo May 2013 #136
Why, yes--that's about the long and the short of it. nt msanthrope May 2013 #139
I would like to say this shocks me. GoCubsGo May 2013 #141
I recommended this because I want the conversation front and center tavalon May 2013 #138
The thing is, tavalon--this isn't new. The grand jury has always msanthrope May 2013 #142
I thought it was actually going back and listening to the conversations tavalon May 2013 #154
Absolutely no wiretap. This is a subpeona of certain business records, allowed msanthrope May 2013 #159
So, where did they find the craptastic idiots for Clinton? tavalon May 2013 #161
What??? The Clinton DC grand jury rocked! They refused to true bill msanthrope May 2013 #162
Allowing Holder to secretly gather the information tavalon May 2013 #163
What? Congress allows this, by statute--here's the link to 28 CFR 50.10 msanthrope May 2013 #164
Perhaps we, the public, should start demanding that the AP release the letter. Produce the letter. Skidmore May 2013 #148
Here is the email address to use: wdcdesk@ap.org. randome May 2013 #152
I think the AP should release the letter..redacting phone numbers msanthrope May 2013 #169
I remember Romney's smirk when he jumped on the Benghazi event with mostly wrong information. nt patrice May 2013 #155
Some of us recall PO saying on 9/12/12, or there-abouts, an INVESTIGATION was under-way AND patrice May 2013 #157
little kick. . . .n/t annabanana May 2013 #158
k&r... spanone May 2013 #167

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
1. This is going to circle right back to a Republican leaking classified information, yet once again.
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:49 PM
May 2013

Putting the lives of intelligence assets in the field at risk is what Republicans do best.


The AP screwed themselves on this one, you wait and see.

JustAnotherGen

(31,856 posts)
3. That's what I'm thinking
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:51 PM
May 2013

Classified information that put an embedded agent at risk.

Shame on the Republican that did that. Trying to sink this administration went a wee bit too far this time. . .

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
4. The House of Reps AP phone wasn't subpoenaed for nothing...and why won't they release the 'letter?'
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:54 PM
May 2013

I would ask that. If I were an investigative journalist.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
7. I am starting to wonder when the Republicans in Congress will start screaming in unison
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:00 PM
May 2013

"We can't let that information out, it's a breach of National Security!" in hopes of burying it.

There is something really smelly here, and it smells just like Elephant Shit.



And Mr. Obama is letting them start to twist, oh so slowly, in the wind.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
19. Here's something interesting--it wasn't done by National Security Letter....
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:15 PM
May 2013

because if it was, the AP would not know about it.

According to Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl, the most likely mechanism for Justice acquiring the information was a grand jury subpoena. (The Huffington Post's Ryan Reilly pointed to the form that Justice's attorney would have had to complete for a "Media Subpoena Request.&quot While the process is more involved for media organizations than for other witnesses in criminal cases — for example, the Attorney General must personally approve it — Opsahl told us that he considered it the most likely route. If the government had employed a more exotic form of request, such as a national security letter, it's likely the AP still wouldn't know that data had been collected. In the case of a grand jury subpoena, the government must notify the party that it has collected the information.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/justice-department-ap-phone-records/65184/


I wonder who is going to get called by the grand jury.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
20. I believe that was on purpose.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:18 PM
May 2013

That way it can't be swept under the rug, they deliberately left out any possible way that it could only be heard or brought out in a closed setting.

AP and whoever they were in contact with are uckfayed.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
24. No Patriot Act or NDAA--plain old DC grand jury....and here's the thing on the letter
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:29 PM
May 2013

that I want to see--

The code section under which the grand jury is proceeding. Because if this was a leak of disclosure made to the Gang of Eight....this is going to be very bloody.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
29. Yep. I'm willing bet there are some Republican undies getting fudged right about now.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:34 PM
May 2013

This is *not* going to be swept under any rug, it will be heard in open court.

Names will be named, for good or ill.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
43. I haven't been paying close attention & appreciate your OP here.
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:01 PM
May 2013

Thanks.

Issuing subpoenas (subpoenae?) is a whole lot different than
"secretly obtaining" which is the misleading way the msm
has been presenting this.

Wouldn't you think the Republicans, who have loved the Patriot
Act so dearly, would be cheering for investigating the free press?

JustAnotherGen

(31,856 posts)
2. I would love that
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:50 PM
May 2013
I want the AP to release the letter they got. Maybe some investigative journalist on this board might ask the AP for me?


But did a little digging - one in particular on this board is a fraud. Some kind of hack blogger but not exactly getting paycheck for their "work". I.E. Not legit. And has spoken out of 'school' before if you catch my drift.

Anyways - I said earlier today - the Press needs to help us. They could start right now with that letter.

And I asked that question/made that requestion knowing full and well it was 20 lines INCLUDING the one in the H.O.R. Press Gallery.

BTW - I work for one of the Evil Empires (major wireless carrier) and I do OFAC list, serve as a liason to federal security matters, etc. etc. 20 lines in joke.

20 lines is not a witch hunt. 20 lines is trying to find who put an agent embedded with the enemy at risk.

BTW - I have her on ignore - so I won't be able to see anything she responds to on this.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
6. Well, if I was an investigative journalist, I might ask why a major news organization
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:56 PM
May 2013

isn't releasing a letter from the government.

20 lines means they know who it is. I have no doubt there are AP reporters who will be appearing in front of this grand jury, and the AP is pissed.

JustAnotherGen

(31,856 posts)
13. Same here
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:11 PM
May 2013

If that was my job (investigative journalist) - I would definitely ask that question.


And 20 lines is VERY targeted and narrowed down. I would bet they have the Republican Operative's details and just needed to make a simple match . . .

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
131. If the "letter" is actually a subpoena involving a Grand Jury
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:20 PM
May 2013

It might be against the rules pertaining to Grand Juries.

So it is a legal issue.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
133. Yes--on the rest of thread there is a bit of a debate about that. I would like it answered, and
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:25 PM
May 2013

I think it's a great question to ask.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. Yeah,
Wed May 15, 2013, 03:54 PM
May 2013

"What if..."

Oh, this is good: House Republican 2012 hearing demanding DOJ subpoena reporters (video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022847992

I have a weird suspicion about the IRS too, specifically related to the timing.

IRS Chief Didn’t Tell Congress About Tea Party Targeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841260

Republican Threatens To Block Funding For IRS Agents To Implement Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841795


DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
32. Hahaha!!!!
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:36 PM
May 2013

Well, just look at you, with your infantile perfect grammar and spelling! Best leave the investigating to the professionals.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
33. I have a confession--dyslexia forces me to use the spell check. When I don't,
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:38 PM
May 2013

it's pretty funny.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
39. I have a confession...
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:50 PM
May 2013

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Reading my cousin's emails is one of my life's guilty pleasures. He's dyslexic and is too impatient to use spell check most of the time. So am I, for that matter - too impatient to use spell check, I mean, and he knows it. Anyway, hilarity has ensued. We get a kick out of each other.

 

MjolnirTime

(1,800 posts)
84. this whole three-pronged fusillade of bullshit against Obama
Wed May 15, 2013, 10:22 PM
May 2013

is nothing more than a coordinated GOP effort to get out in front of this true scandal (leaking classified info) with "scandals" of their own.

muddying the waters.

won't work this time.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
87. That's right.
Wed May 15, 2013, 10:58 PM
May 2013

Exactly right. And there are Republicans involved in all 3 of the "scandals" too. Romney with Benghazi, at least one congressman in the AP story, a Republican CIA leaker to AP and a Republican appointee at the head of the IRS when that happened.

chillfactor

(7,580 posts)
14. excellent analysis...
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:11 PM
May 2013

I am so sick of the naysayers here bashing everyone in site....i think we have more trolls here than actual clear-thinking DUers...I used to believe that Democrats were critical-thinkers, had reasoning power, and good old common sense...after reading some of the hateful, unwarranted comments on this board...I am not so sure any more..

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
26. The bad economy, the failure of Occupy, etc. has made for some understandable disgruntlement, IMO.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:31 PM
May 2013

I think we can all spring back into more-or-less unity again if we can dump these loathsome Republicans next year.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Cha

(297,503 posts)
100. There's a lot of good thinkers on this board.
Thu May 16, 2013, 04:25 AM
May 2013

I have most of those you described on Ignore.. so it looks pretty clean around here to me.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
102. On one of the first threads about this the other day
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:30 AM
May 2013

People were already mouthing off about how the AP and their reporters had their constitutional rights violated even before all the information came out. It should surprise anyone these are the same people that repeatedly bash Obama.

Edit: and here is the thread I'm talking about. Funny how I don't see many of the outraged around now.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
16. This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:14 PM
May 2013

This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information. And if I think I only know 50%, it's more probable that I only know 25% of the information... with less than half of that being actually relevant.

So yeah... I'm going to remain eyes open, mouth closed on this until I have more than 12% of the relevant information needed to reach a valid opinion.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
103. Probably a good policy
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:31 AM
May 2013

The other day some people already has their foot in their mouths about this. I won't hold my breath for an apology from those people.

MineralMan

(146,324 posts)
17. But...but...Obama....Holder...but...but
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:15 PM
May 2013

Does this mean I should wait to find out the facts before launching an attack? How boring.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
22. Facts are good, and one might wonder why the AP isn't showing a major one---the
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:22 PM
May 2013

letter.

Why isn't the AP releasing that letter?

That alone might lead the investigative journalists to question why the AP--a news organization--hasn't provided a major piece of evidence in this 'scandal.'

Washington grand juries do strange things. They refused to give Ken Starr a true bill. They indicted Scooter Libby on a question asked by a grand juror. I'd want to investigate what's going on here....

Especially if it involved the House of Reps.

MineralMan

(146,324 posts)
23. The more facts the better, I say.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:24 PM
May 2013

Reveal everything and then we might get to the truth. It may not be the truth that some people prefer, though. That's always the risk, I guess.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
27. The letter from the government to the AP would have the code section under which
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:33 PM
May 2013

the grand jury was proceeding.

Looking at the code section might tell us who was being investigated--for example, if the grand jury was proceeding under violations of leaking a covert "Title 50" operation, it might point to a very specific members of Congress. Like the Gang of 8.

All I know is that if I were an investigative journalist, I'd want to see that 'letter.'

MineralMan

(146,324 posts)
31. Could well be. I imagine it will be revealed in time.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:36 PM
May 2013

I hope it's at the right time to make the Republicans STFU in embarrassment and despair. That's what I hope.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
36. OP claims "letter" is actually a Grand Jury Subpoena in a nat'l security case. Says AP can't
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:47 PM
May 2013

publish it, That's a claim made by the OP. I'm skeptical that is not correct as it violates Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (This is one edit after I mistook the OP's claim to be fact - my bad?)

A lot of us are jumping to conclusions here on the basis of fragmentary evidence, although I would not be surprised if it turns out it was an Intel Committee staffer who leaked to AP, which put a spin on this in its original May 7 that the Obama WH had made misleading statements about no known AQ threat to coincide with the anniversary of Bin Laden's death.

The AP article didn't reveal much - that came a day or two later with a series of reports from the WaPo and the NYT.

The operation was over and the double-agent already long extracted form Yemen by the time the AP published this. There were no lives at risk. The bit about relatives in Yemen being endangered smells like BS and an afterthought - the agent was Saudi sent in from abroad.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
45. Well, wait a second--has the AP said it isn't legally releaseable? Why are they being
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:03 PM
May 2013

so coy? Are we not supposed to question the MSM as to their motives?

I don't think this was Intel Committee. I think this was Gang of 8. This was a Title 50 covert op.

And the point you are missing is that Mr. Romney and the Republicans tried to use this as an Obama-based leak that showed the President 'weak' on foreign co-operation with the UK and Saudi Arabia, as documented below.

If the AP colluded with the leaker in an attempt to play a dirty trick at election time, we should know about that. Maybe the reporter was an unwitting part, maybe they weren't. But we should know who leaked a title 50 covert op in order to sway an election.



hedda_foil

(16,375 posts)
95. Ah, but gang of 8 means the Majority and Minority Leaders plus Chair and Ranking Members of Intel Co
Thu May 16, 2013, 12:16 AM
May 2013

Limiting that to the four House members, and then to the Repubs only, we are left with either Boehner or Cantor (depending on whether it's the Speaker or Majority Leader) and the House Intel chairman, who is...

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
52. They could redact it or they could state it is a GJ matter. Or they could say they can't say.
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:13 PM
May 2013

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
64. I believe the OP is incorrect. Fed Rule of Cr P 6(e) states that a witness can reveal info re FedGJ
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:56 PM
May 2013

The rule is the gov't and Grand Jurors must keep it confidential, except when there is a nat'l security issue, but the witness subpoenaed may reveal whatever he likes about the experience.

Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6#

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
75. Post 74 outlines the local rules exception and the grand juror exception.
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:16 PM
May 2013

Now...why are you defending the AP not publishing?

And if I'm wrong why aren't they publishing that letter?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
25. "Anybody remember how in the Spring...
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:30 PM
May 2013

"Anybody remember how in the Spring of last year, Romney was trying to up his foreign policy creds?"

Romney Blasts Security Leaks as a Betrayal
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/politics/romney-blasts-security-leaks-as-an-obama-betrayal.html?pagewanted=all

Mitt Romney Accuses Obama Of Classified Material Leaks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/mitt-romney-vfw_n_1699079.html

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
30. Oh--how interesting. Romney blamed Obama for the leak, and now, the AP is
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:36 PM
May 2013

squalling because the administration is investigating who gave them a leak of a "Title 50" covert op.

A leak that Romney tried to use as a dirty tricks.


 

randome

(34,845 posts)
28. Here's the AP email address: info@ap.org. Unless someone knows of a better one.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:34 PM
May 2013

Let's ask them to release that letter or to explain why they won't.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
35. I'm trying to find Gary Pruitt's...there's a 2nd letter he's not releasing, and
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:44 PM
May 2013

I would hope that some of the investigative journalists on this board would know some contacts in the AP organization.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
34. Here's the email I just sent.
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:41 PM
May 2013
DOJ Acquisition of Reporters' Phone Records

Since the AP revealed it has received a letter from the DOJ regarding the acquisition of phone records recently, it seems to me that printing that letter would go a long way toward supporting your claim that this was an unwarranted intrusion.

Rumors are that the letter mentioned a grand jury investigation so it's understandable if you were not to print the entire contents, only redacted portions.

But the full nature of the letter needs to be released if common readers of the news are to be better informed. Like news organizations themselves, we are very much in favor of hearing the truth no matter where it leads.

Thank you for your time.


[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
40. I got the DC desk email--- wdcdesk@ap.org
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:52 PM
May 2013

Here is what I sent--

Re: DOJ Grand Jury Investigation of AP phone records.

Could you release the letters that the DOJ has sent you regarding this issue? It seems an important part of this story, and I'd really like to see if these letters were from the grand jury currently investigating the Yemen bomb leak.

Why are you withholding them?

Thanks for your time.

msanthrope

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
44. Thanks! I'll send one to that address, too!
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:02 PM
May 2013

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
42. thankyou!
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:55 PM
May 2013

this is much more likely the scenario than anything the fuck to do with 'freedom of the press' that the whiners are whining about here and on the stupid corporate bought tv while demanding Obama's and Holder's heads to roll.

bells start going off loud at the defense of the media like they are some fucking sacred cows. They work for the Koch types, that is who they are, they sit silent and mewly while Bush orchestrates a mass murder, they are in the laps of arms merchants and liars and treachery. Fuck them all. And people are going to get all teary eyed for them because they are being picked on? Fuck them all.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
49. People have worked themselves into such a conspiracy frenzy about this President
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:09 PM
May 2013

& his peeps.. it's all they can see, it fills their minds, drives their days, haunts their dreams.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
54. I remember when the Clenis fascinated Democrats, as well as Republicans.
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:18 PM
May 2013

Democrats did half the work of impeachment.

 

railsback

(1,881 posts)
47. Let's hope this tidbit settles down all the freakazoids calling for Holder's head
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:06 PM
May 2013

Let the man do his job.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
51. I also think it's highly likely that the leaker is a Republican.
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:13 PM
May 2013

The interesting part will be finding out which one.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
53. More interesting is the role of the AP in this--if the leaker is a Republican, then
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:16 PM
May 2013

this is what happened--

Republican leaks a title 50 covert op to reporter.

Reporter calls to confirm.

CIA asks for holdoff.

AP publishes early.

Republicans blame Obama for leak.

Romney blames Obama for leak.

AP IS SILENT.


The AP is either in active collusion on a dirty trick, OR, they knew they got punked, and didn't out the source.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
60. Looks like a vaible timeline, and points directly at a Republican operation.
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:38 PM
May 2013

BOOM! goes the dynamite!

Number23

(24,544 posts)
70. Between this and the story about the Repubs deliberately falsifying emails re: Benghazi
Wed May 15, 2013, 06:54 PM
May 2013

this is starting to look like some federal offenses may have occurred.

If this goes down the trajectory you've beautifully outlined in your thread, this will be some DEEP doo-doo for the Repubs. They will be in for some serious butt hurt. But a good chunk of GD (and we know who they are. They know too) will no doubt do all they can to ease their pain.

Liberal In Texas

(13,570 posts)
156. I was wondering how the AP confrimed the veracity of the "tip."
Thu May 16, 2013, 03:09 PM
May 2013

I would have thought that the CIA would have no comment on it. But maybe they did, which seems like an amateur move.

And if the CIA didn't confirm it, then who else?

Quixote1818

(28,955 posts)
58. This is why Senate Republican's are standing down on this
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:34 PM
May 2013

They know it would blow back in their face if they go too strong.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
61. Precisely--this could be Gang of Eight.
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:41 PM
May 2013

That's the chairmen and ranking Members of the intelligence committee, along with the Speaker and minority leader of the House, and Senate majority and minority leaders.

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
59. exactly, msanthrope!
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:35 PM
May 2013

there are no coinkydinks.
there is no way to sling shit without the stink leading back to the "source". love that little law of nature.
i look forward to reading how this all turns out and the name(s) of the "leaker(s)" who have jeopardized the safety of others.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
63. OP- Please cite a source for your claim that a subpoenaed witness cannot publish an subpoena
Wed May 15, 2013, 05:45 PM
May 2013

I've looked around without success for authority that confirms your claim that a Grand Jury subpoena cannot be published, particularly in the DC Circuit in Nat'l Security cases.

In fact, the only source I could find that references the confidentiality of federal Grand Jury subpoenas states the opposite. Witnesses can reveal that they have been subpoenaed, even if prosecutors sometimes warn them not to: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/federal-grand-jury-crash-course.html


4. GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR THE WITNESS. Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the federal grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any “matter occurring before the grand jury” a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violations of this rule can result in sanctions or criminal contempt. The rule of federal grand jury secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a federal grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony. But some federal prosecutors attach cover letters to grand jury subpoenas, informing the witness that revealing the contents, or even the existence, of the subpoena “may impede” a criminal investigation. These cover letters then “request” that the witness not disclose the subpoena (and/or the documents requested in the subpoena) and ask the witness to notify the prosecutor if the witness has any “problems” with the non-disclosure. You should by no means put up with this nonsense. When my clients receive a cover letter like this, I usually write a polite response to the prosecutor or the case agent including the following language: “Your cover letter requests non-disclosure of the subpoena (and/or the documents requested in the subpoena) and asks to be notified if there are problems with such non-disclosure. I am reluctant to have my client take on a formal affirmative obligation, regarding either non-disclosure of the subpoena or notification of problems with such non-disclosure, beyond the requirements, if any, found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) or in some other statutory or court authority you can point me to. Rest assured, however, that my client has absolutely no desire to compromise your investigation or to publicize the existence of either the subpoena or your investigation.”

5. GRAN
5. GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR THE GOVERNMENT. As mentioned, Rule 6(e) prohibits the government from revealing “a matter occurring before the grand jury.” This prohibition of course covers the content of federal grand jury testimony. But it goes much further. The government cannot even reveal that you appeared before the federal grand jury or that you have been subpoenaed or scheduled to appear. Many prosecutors and agents get sloppy about this and reveal that a person or company has been subpoenaed. In addition, some federal grand juries have waiting rooms where multiple witnesses are invited to wait until they are called. In these situations, each witness is told, in effect, that the other witnesses waiting with him have been summoned to appear “before the grand jury.” On other occasions, members of the press, who know what day the federal grand jurors meet, have been tipped off to be at the courthouse entrance, so that they can see a grand jury witness enter and draw the obvious conclusion. Your white collar criminal defense attorney should be vigilant in guarding against these abuses and should warn the federal prosecutors handling your case not to violate grand jury secrecy with such maneuvers.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
66. You are forgetting the DC circuit local rules.
Wed May 15, 2013, 06:14 PM
May 2013

Far more stringent, thanks to Ken Starr.

Under your rubric, then, why hasn't the AP published? I'd gladly be wrong.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
67. Local Ct. Rules don't trump Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Wed May 15, 2013, 06:20 PM
May 2013

I'm pretty sure such an exception would be referenced in the sources. My bad for taking your statement at face value and repeating them without checking!

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
73. If you look at rule 6e you will see the exception. And post 74 outlines
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:03 PM
May 2013

the local rule and grand juror exception.

Also...if I am wrong...then there is no impediment to publication. have you asked yourself why major news organization would not then print a letter from the government??

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
83. It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6).
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:57 PM
May 2013

I've looked at Rule 6(e)(3) of Federal Criminal Procedure several times, and I do not see the exception to the rule that a GJ witness may disclose his knowledge of the proceedings. However, I think what you are referring to is "Rule 6."

6(b)(2)(A) states that no secrecy may be imposed in a Grand Jury except upon jurors, court personnel, and gov't lawyers. That is restated in Chapter 2 of the DOJ Grand Jury Manual, as follows: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm

K. Non-Disclosure Orders

Restrictions on witnesses

Witnesses may not be put under any obligation of secrecy because Rule 6(e) specifically prohibits any obligation of secrecy from being "imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule.&quot 173) Consequently, witnesses are free to discuss their testimony with their own counsel, counsel for potential targets or anyone else they so choose. In appropriate circumstances, the grand jury foreman or the Government attorney may request that a witness not make any unnecessary disclosures because of possible interference with the investigation. However, when making such a request, it should be extremely clear that it is a request only and not a command and that the person making the request uses no express or implied coercion.



6(b)(4), however, dealing with sealed indictments imposes secrecy requirements on persons but that relates only to disclosure of the existence of the indictment until the subject is in custody or released. Related to this, Rule 6 -- 6(b)(6) -- states that records of a sealed indictment, including subpoenas, may also be sealed (made secret). See, below. It may be possible that if a sealed indictment has already been returned, further subpoenas and testimony could also be sealed. However, witnesses would be free to talk about receipt of such a sealed subpoena, to coin that term.

Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.

(1) Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter's notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

(3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter—other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote—may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government—that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. §3322.

(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. §401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.

(i) Any official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information. Any state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only in a manner consistent with any guidelines issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

(ii) Within a reasonable time after disclosure is made underRule 6(e)(3)(D), an attorney for the government must file, under seal, a notice with the court in the district where the grand jury convened stating that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.

(iii) As used in Rule 6(e)(3)(D), the term “foreign intelligence information” means:

(a) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against—

• actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent;

• sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent; or

• clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent; or

(b) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to—

• the national defense or the security of the United States; or

• the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte—as it may be when the government is the petitioner—the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to:

(i) an attorney for the government;

(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and

(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.

(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer, it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed, if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grand-jury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.

(4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

(5) Closed Hearing. Subject to any right to an open hearing in a contempt proceeding, the court must close any hearing to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(6) Sealed Records. Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(7) Contempt. A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.

(f) Indictment and Return. A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur. The grand jury—or its foreperson or deputy foreperson—must return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
90. Well, if I am wrong about the rule, then why haven't they published?
Wed May 15, 2013, 11:35 PM
May 2013

Think about your argument, friend.....if there is no bar to the witness publishing, then why haven't the AP--a major news organization....published???

Let's say you are right...and I am wrong....where, levey?

Where is the letter from the government?

What possible bar could exist to publishing?

Tell us, friend? Where is the letter that YOU have proven there is no bar to?



leveymg

(36,418 posts)
106. If there's a sealed indictment, the subpoenas may also be sealed. The witness can talk about their
Thu May 16, 2013, 08:16 AM
May 2013

own experiences freely, but if their subpoena is sealed (even though they have seen it and can describe its contents), the sealed document can't be legally be published until the target is taken into custody or released.

Issuing subpoenas to others within the same organization is not only a means to gather information, it's also a way of sowing fear in the ranks and intimidating the organization to force cooperation.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
110. You're conflating a few different things ...but again, why haven't they published?
Thu May 16, 2013, 09:04 AM
May 2013

If something is 'sealed' then it isn't being sent to them. Below I posted EFF's speculation that it was a grand jury. you may not believe me but certainly they have more credibility don't they?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
126. When an indictment is sealed, the court docs - including the subpoenas - normally are, as well.
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:38 PM
May 2013

It is contempt of court to publish sealed documents related to a sealed indictment. Indictments can remain sealed for a long time.

It seems like a contradiction. Undre Rule 6(e), a witness can talk or write freely about the subpoena he has been served and the Grand Jury he testified to. But, if the same Grand Jury issues a sealed indictment, and the court documents are sealed per Rule 7, it is illegal (contempt of court) to publish an image or to reproduce the sealed document, itself. Rules 4 (sealed indictment), 6 (sealed documents), and 7 (sanctions for revealing either) present a fine line, and most witnesses stay safely inside of it by not going into too much detail about the subpoena they were served and the proceedings, when the Grand Jury has issued a sealed indictment.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
134. Like I said....you are conflating a few different things. But you seem to have conceded the point
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:28 PM
May 2013

that this is looking more and more like a Grand Jury, and that the 'letter' is indeed, a subpoena.

You might find it interesting to read up on the jurisprudence of the local DC rules--lots of cases from around the Clinton grand jury. A fun read.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
140. Put some links out, and I'll read it.
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:34 PM
May 2013

I admit that I still don't know everything, yet, and sometimes I'm even capable of learning new things.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
143. I can't link off my Lexis account.***
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:40 PM
May 2013

But I will tell you a funny story--recently on this board I was accused of not being a lawyer.

The 'proof?'

I used the term 'Lexis' instead of 'LexisNexis.'

This was 'proof' according to the naysayer that I was not an attorney, because I must be thinking of the car.

Not joking....this was 'proof.'

I bet if you google "Ken Starr" 'OIC' and "Judge Holloway Johnson' you will have a fun read.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
144. I have a Lexis Acct. and Pacer.
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:42 PM
May 2013

Go ahead and post some cites (and I don't mean sites, but some of those are ok - I like Balkan, for instance).

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
146. No...I mean I cannot hotlink off this friggin' phone. If you are in Lexis, though,
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:47 PM
May 2013

run the sheet on Judith Miller's Subpoena (look at the docket issue), and Ken Starr's OIC OTC. Plenty to read there.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
153. I remember that 'proof'! LOL!
Thu May 16, 2013, 03:06 PM
May 2013

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
68. In addition to the absence of support for such a claim, it seems that there is an absence of
Wed May 15, 2013, 06:41 PM
May 2013

a factual support for the speculation that "these subpoenas probably came from the grand jury ..."

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
74. My dear former IRS lawyer...would you care to look at 6e (3)(B)(5) in the DOJ handbook
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:11 PM
May 2013

regarding the local rules provision? Further, what is your learned position on the power the grand jury foreman to demand secrecy per the manual?

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm

Number23

(24,544 posts)
72. If the very nature of the grand jury means that it operates in secrecy
Wed May 15, 2013, 07:05 PM
May 2013

why do think it would be allowed to publish its subpoenas?

Additionally, your link says that witnesses can reveal that they have been subpoenaed, not that the subpoena itself could be published.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
78. Then they should be upfront about that -state that they cannot publish because of that reason.
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:21 PM
May 2013

If they're not willing to give us all the information they can, they are serving no one's interests but their own.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Number23

(24,544 posts)
69. Msanthrope, I'd take one of you over 5 dozen of the Hair on Fire Brigade any damn day of the week
Wed May 15, 2013, 06:49 PM
May 2013

and twice on Sunday.

K&R

mainer

(12,023 posts)
76. judith Miller forever destroyed my faith in "free press"
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:18 PM
May 2013

I used to feel they were there to protect us. Now (esp after talking to my own CIA contacts) I've learned that the press can be just as corrupt.

Judy Miller needed to be publicly condemned by her colleagues. Never happened.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
80. Two days ago, Michael Isikoff made this point:
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:45 PM
May 2013
ISIKOFF: Well, there are Justice Department regulations on this who -- which do state these subpoenas for news organizations should be crafted as narrowly as possible for a limited period of time. And that`s what the "A.P." in that extraordinary letter it wrote to Attorney General Holder today saying seems to be flouted here.

But they`re regulations, they`re not laws. And this is a criminal investigation and they do have the absolute legal authority to do this any way they want. But they would have to explain why they`re not following their own guidelines and regulations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51878006/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/


"The seizure of AP's phone records is legal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850071

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
85. Regarding the foreign policy creds: YES.
Wed May 15, 2013, 10:26 PM
May 2013

Things I know:
The way for Romney to look strong was stop Obama's success in combating terrorism. Eliminating the only CIA asset within AQAP and assassinating an ambassador in Libya would certainly do the trick.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
88. The title of the OP makes a concrete claim (AP's being investigated by GJ) then doesn't back it up.
Wed May 15, 2013, 11:12 PM
May 2013

The OP goes no further than the middle of the second paragraph before the word "probably" pops up. Also, a Google search shows the OP as the only place on the 'net where this information can be found. The "grand jury" link at the end of paragraph six does not say the AP is the subject of the grand jury investigation. It says a grand jury is investigating the possible leak of classified information TO the AP.

From the link:

A grand jury based in Washington’s federal court has been investigating the possible leak of classified information to the AP for several months, according to a government official familiar with the probe who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing case.

Judging from the replies to the OP ("And there you have it." for example) and the recs it's received, some are taking the suppositions the OP makes as fact. I think that's a mistake.

If the word "probably" is added to the OP title (The AP's probably being investigated) it becomes something totally different than what I believe most who replied and rec'd see it as.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
91. Um, a subpoena means investigation. As in, if you get a subpoena, do you
Wed May 15, 2013, 11:46 PM
May 2013

think you are being investigated?

Why, yes. You are.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
92. If it's a fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation I apologixe.
Thu May 16, 2013, 12:03 AM
May 2013

I simply cannot find it stated that way anywhere.

Is it a hard fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
93. The M$M tried to slander it with the use of 'taps'
Thu May 16, 2013, 12:07 AM
May 2013

with make believe it was as in 'illegal wiretaps', but then backed off and admitted it was done by the book. So ho-hum...OHHH WAIT? Did you say the slime trail can be traced back to a GOPuker?

Ohhh my my...

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
97. Just asking again
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:38 AM
May 2013

Evidently the DOJ is casting a vast net to catch anything. The problem with wide reach is the inability to have close focus. The chances of actually finding a pattern that aids the investigation is slim. The chances that somebody panics and calls somebody for reassurance isn't too bad. If subpoenas were issued for records, were subpoenas issued for taps?
Never watch only the moving hand.
I wrote this earlier. Now after reading the speculation here. I wonder....... if anything it's been a great topic.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
98. This is stupidly wrong
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:33 AM
May 2013
http://www.ap.org/Images/Letter-to-Eric-Holder_tcm28-12896.pdf
Last Friday afternoon, AP General Counsel Laura Malone received a letter from the office
of United States Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. advising that, at some unidentified time
earlier this year, the Department obtained telephone toll records for more than 20 separate
telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists. The records that were secretly obtained cover a full two-
month period in early 2012 and, at least as described in Mr. Machen’s letter, include all such records for, among other
phone lines, an AP general phone number in New York City as well as AP bureaus in New York City, Washington, D.C.,
Hartford, Connecticut, and at the House of Representatives. This action was taken without
advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice
has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were
seized by the Department


This would be easy to rebut if it were not true. Holder in his testimony said he believed the Deputy AG had authorized the subpoena for the records.

So the speculation about it coming from the grand jury isn't true.

Also, they probably will not release the letter because it contains a list of the phone numbers subpoenaed, and some of those are private lines and one would have to expect that those private lines would have to be dropped due to everyone calling them.

Wired has reported the verbiage in the letter:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/ap-plays-doj-letters-close-to-the-vest/
An article in Wired published Monday evening, however, reported on the contents of the DOJ letter.

“The letter to AP’s general counsel,” said Wired, “consisted of a single sentence that said, “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. (Section) 50.10(g)(3), the Associated Press is hereby notified that the United States Department of Justice has received toll records from April and May 2012 in response to subpoenas issued for the following telephone phone numbers.””



.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
105. Actually, thank you for proving my point--where is that letter? They keep referring
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:18 AM
May 2013

to a letter but never printing it....

And, as you note, the AG needed to sign off. Well, yes that is the procedure for a press subpoena issuing out of a grand jury, pursuant to 28 CFR 50.10 . Please note that if you don't believe me, the EFF explains that this is probably coming out of the grand jury quite nicely---

According to Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl, the most likely mechanism for Justice acquiring the information was a grand jury subpoena. (The Huffington Post's Ryan Reilly pointed to the form that Justice's attorney would have had to complete for a "Media Subpoena Request.&quot While the process is more involved for media organizations than for other witnesses in criminal cases — for example, the Attorney General must personally approve it — Opsahl told us that he considered it the most likely route. If the government had employed a more exotic form of request, such as a national security letter, it's likely the AP still wouldn't know that data had been collected. In the case of a grand jury subpoena, the government must notify the party that it has collected the information.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/justice-department-ap-phone-records/65184/



And here's the issuing statute--
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol2-sec50-10.pdf

But I'd like to see that whole letter. Why hasn't it been printed?
 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
107. Maybe the AP doesn't want to divulge the namrs
Thu May 16, 2013, 08:22 AM
May 2013

of the employees and other private information in the letter. Your theory hinges on your speculative reason for not publishing. Maybe they are not permitted to. Maybe they choose not to. I'll watch it play out before buying into your theory.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
116. They can redact or they can state they cannot publish.
Thu May 16, 2013, 09:50 AM
May 2013

To not give the context of the letter is not good journalism. This isn't an 'us versus them' situation. News organizations are supposed to publish a full account as possible and let the readers make up their own minds.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Cha

(297,503 posts)
101. Very Informative OP, msanthrope..
Thu May 16, 2013, 04:32 AM
May 2013

thank you. Now, I'm aware of "the letter", too.

"Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP phone records in leak investigation

The office of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia on Monday released a statement saying it is not required to notify a media organization in advance of issuing such subpoenas if doing so “would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

Too bad all this wasn't available right away before so many went off half cocked.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
118. Question for msanthrope
Thu May 16, 2013, 10:55 AM
May 2013

msanthrope, I seem to remember that you posted once that you were a Party official. Is my memory correct on that or have I confused you with someone else?

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
137. No, comrade, I am not a "Party official." Seriously, though, I do work for various
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:32 PM
May 2013

Democratic campaigns, in different capacities. But I am a very, very small cog.

Most recently I was working for Obama 2012 as a attorney. I spoke on Steve Leser's show on Election Night.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
145. Thanks
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:45 PM
May 2013

I thought you had mentioned in a previous post that you held some type of paid position within the Democratic Party or that you were an elected official. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else? Anyway, thanks for the response.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
165. There are some Party people on this site. I think it's up to them to say who
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:10 PM
May 2013

they are, but I also know that we have elected officials, and of course, Agent Mike.

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
121. If Boomerang Tossing Were An Olympic Event
Thu May 16, 2013, 11:40 AM
May 2013

GOP could bring home the Gold! Sounds like this is heating up and predict it WILL be covered by MSM. This is blood in the water for them.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
132. Love yr description/analogy.
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:21 PM
May 2013

Also found this of interest:


From the UK Guardian's Glenn Greenwald:
"As a result of the last week, there is an undeniable and quite substantial sea change in how the establishment media is thinking and speaking about Obama. The ultimate purveyors of Beltway media conventional wisdom (CW), Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei, published an article yesterday headlined “DC turns on Obama”, writing that “the town is turning on President Obama – and this is very bad news for this White House” and “reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.” The Washington Post’s political reporter, Dan Balz, another CW bellwether, wrote that these controversies “reflect questions about the administration that predate the revelations of the past few days“. About the AP story, Balz wrote that “no one can recall anything as far-reaching as what the Justice Department apparently did in secretly gathering information about the work of AP journalists.”

Full article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/obama-civil-liberties-sea-change

Gothmog

(145,483 posts)
122. This thread makes me smile-Thanks for the information
Thu May 16, 2013, 12:42 PM
May 2013

I attempted to ignore all of the people calling for AG Holder to be fired or to be impeached. The DOJ has the right to request this information in connection with a criminal investigation.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
125. He makes the wrong point.
Thu May 16, 2013, 12:52 PM
May 2013

Someone still leaked a national security secret to the AP and that person needs to be identified.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
127. In the bubble
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:51 PM
May 2013

Excellent Greenwald column today.

Excerpt:

<snip>

Second, we yet again see one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy: the way in which it has transformed and degraded so many progressive precincts. Almost nobody is defending the DOJ's breathtaking targeting of AP, and with good reason: as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press made clear yesterday, it's unprecedented:

"In the thirty years since the Department issued guidelines governing its subpoena practice as it relates to phone records from journalists, none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for news gathering materials was deployed by the Department, particularly without notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicial review."

But there are a few people excusing or outright defending the DOJ here: namely, some progressive blogs and media outlets. They are about the only ones willing to defend this sweeping attempt to get the phone records of AP journalists.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/obama-civil-liberties-sea-change
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
129. 'Sweeping attempt'.
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:05 PM
May 2013

Out of the AP's hundreds of phone lines, only 20 were requested of the phone companies, and only for a 2 month period.

Sounds like a measured request to me but that's of course in the eye of the beholder.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
130. And of course, in a nation that is slipping into
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:18 PM
May 2013

Totalitarianism more each day, what need is there for a free press?

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
168. Do you think we have a free press in practice?
Thu May 16, 2013, 11:51 PM
May 2013

I think it is less intrusion by government and more a question of ownership interests. In my opinion, our major media outlets are not so much "free" as "paid for." (Just my .02.)

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
170. Your statements are not wrong, but the revolving door between industry
Fri May 17, 2013, 04:49 PM
May 2013

And government agencies, and of course the situation where the Coporate Persons can buy candidates, all that translates into what Eisenhower originally called the Military/Industrial/Governmental complex.

One of the first things out of Bill Casey's mouth when he was made head of the CIA in the 1980's was a quote to the effect that over the next 15 years, everything the press would tell the American people would be a lie.

If something is touted as a headline, I really begin to believe the opposite is true.

In one instance, that regarding the gas additive MTBE, I did a detailed and multi-year account of how the Big Media forces handled the situation. This is why I am so very dubious of what our press says, at all times, about everything. (Other than one of the fluff stories, like "Golden Retrievers make good pets.&quot

The piece is a good read, so feel free to see what you think when/if you have a chance:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/06/22/540267/-The-TRUTH-Versus-the-Mainstream-Media

GoCubsGo

(32,086 posts)
136. Let me get this straight....
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:31 PM
May 2013

Congress, who spent much of President Obama's first term criticizing him for allowing leaks, leaked information to the AP, and are now criticizing the Obama Administration for investigating a leak? Do I have that right?

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
138. I recommended this because I want the conversation front and center
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:32 PM
May 2013

Thing is, I'm still pretty hinky about this change in policy regarding the first amendment. I've thought for years that the press had given away their freedom willingly and that pissed me off to no end, but having their specific right as spelled out in the first amendment thrown to the wind, I'm appalled.

You want information, you subpoena the people involved and if they will not talk (Judith Miller - I despise that woman and yet she did what journalists are supposed to do when asked by a grand jury to release their sources), you throw them in jail for contempt but you do NOT take their phone records, their computers, etc. This is new, scary, and in my opinion, wrong.

I hope AP sues and this gets to the Supreme Court. And I hope that all those frothing at the mouth constitutionalists on our Supreme Court knock the DOJ and our President back a few steps. They stepped over the line with this.

And on a side note, does anybody remember that Obama is a constitutional scholar. I especially wonder if Obama remembers.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
142. The thing is, tavalon--this isn't new. The grand jury has always
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:37 PM
May 2013

had the power of subpoena. And on certain records--i.e.--third-party held records, the subpoena does not go to you, it goes to your service provider--your phone company, your bank, your electric company, etc.

This wasn't a wiretap--this was phone records. And while the Justice Department has procedures defined by statute regarding the press...the penalty for breaking these procedures is administrative. (and it doesn't look like they were broken.)

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
154. I thought it was actually going back and listening to the conversations
Thu May 16, 2013, 03:07 PM
May 2013

Still, I think we're parsing things here and besides, just because the Grand Jury can, doesn't mean that they should step on the first amendment. It's easy enough to do some old fashioned police foot work to find out who the leaker was and who he/she leaked it to is and should be irrelevant and private.

A few years ago we were all in a dither about TIA, Total Information Awareness. No one seems to care that it was recently revealed that the cell companies are keeping all conversations. So, can we be sure that just records were subpoenaed? I don't think we can.

Do we just forget the Constitution when it's our party that has the White House? I can't say I can hang with that. It is my opinion that the constitution, specifically the First Amendment has been breached and really, with the exception of a few people here, that seems to be the general consensus.

And on a purely practical basis, it is my opinion thus far, (open to change) that Obama just handed Congress a real scandal, something that he really can be impeached upon. And that pisses me off because there will be no chance for anything to get done if Congress is getting it's impeachment on.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
159. Absolutely no wiretap. This is a subpeona of certain business records, allowed
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:30 PM
May 2013

by statute, pursuant to the powers of a grand jury.

This is completely constitutional. The 1st amendment does not give reporters special privileges to commit or abet crimes. This is actually more of a 4th amendment issue--why should the press get a privilege you or I certainly would not?

Impeachment? Not a chance of an impeachment over a valid grand jury.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
161. So, where did they find the craptastic idiots for Clinton?
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:33 PM
May 2013

I do hope, almost believe, that these juries are selected without bias but I doubt. Hope, belief and doubt. What strange bedfellows.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
162. What??? The Clinton DC grand jury rocked! They refused to true bill
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:37 PM
May 2013

and Kenny had to go to the House.

Now, as for Impeachment, why would the President be impeached over this? Can you name the crime the President has done?

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
163. Allowing Holder to secretly gather the information
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:43 PM
May 2013

A blunder the Bush maladministration did only once and it wasn't on the Scooter Libby thing. I don't want him impeached. I also don't want a Unitary Executive with ever expanding powers. I can hold both of those.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
164. What? Congress allows this, by statute--here's the link to 28 CFR 50.10
Thu May 16, 2013, 05:47 PM
May 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol2-sec50-10.pdf


How can you possibly proclaim a 'Unitary Executive' with a law passed by CONGRESS?

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
148. Perhaps we, the public, should start demanding that the AP release the letter. Produce the letter.
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:51 PM
May 2013

I also wish that this thread gets tossed to someone with some journalistic credibility to followup on.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
152. Here is the email address to use: wdcdesk@ap.org.
Thu May 16, 2013, 03:04 PM
May 2013

I sent a message yesterday, the text of which is elsewhere in this thread, as is msanthrope's.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

patrice

(47,992 posts)
157. Some of us recall PO saying on 9/12/12, or there-abouts, an INVESTIGATION was under-way AND
Thu May 16, 2013, 03:17 PM
May 2013

people could expect that there was/is a great deal more stuff to know about this and PO even said, as I recall, that it would be VERY important when the facts come out.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The AP's being investigat...