Another Obama ‘Scandal’? Nope… GOP Rep Claims Responsibility For AP Surveillance
Source: Addicting Info
Just when you thought another event was about to be added to the growing list of Obama scandals what with the Benghazi cover-up (debunked by a single e-mail), the IRS surveillance of Tea Party-supporting groups (which flame-throwers like Allen West attempted to conflate into conspiracies with no success), and the continuing heat on the military for its policies on sexual abuse the Department of Justice investigation of Associated Press telephone records, widely expected to be another partisan blowtorch, has just been defended by a Republican congressman who claims it was the Republicans themselves who demanded the investigation last year.
Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) spoke to Fox News Greta Van Susteren about the issue, one libertarians, journalists, and freedom of information advocates all believe demands review and reform, and instead of using it to bludgeon the administration for overstepping (which most of his party, the media, and even the Presidents own party are doing), he instead claimed it was the natural evolution of a GOP demand for a probe. From Think Progress:
Greta, you were an attorney. There are lots of privileges husband-wife, priest-penitent, attorney-client, none of them unqualified. So when you have a major national security leak, which is a compelling issue, and you juxtapose that with the right of the media to do its job and provide oversight, theres a conflict. And theres no federal statute on point. But the Supreme Court has said if there is a compelling interest, which there certainly is in national security cases, and the information is relevant which it has to be to justify a subpoena, and you have no alternative means of getting the information, then the Department of Justice had no choice. . . .
Think back a year ago. We had the attorney general and other Department of Justice employees, and we grilled them over national security leaks. And here they are doing what we asked them to do, investigate the leak.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/16/no-choice-gop-congressman-cites-national-security-defends-doj-investigation-of-ap-video/
villager
(26,001 posts)bluemarkers
(536 posts)Is it a Homer Simpson moment?
?
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Perfect. Of course, some of us have been saying this all along.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)The fact is that DOJ did it. That is far more consequential. Anyone can ask for something, but seizing records without a warrant is serious. It's a clear violation of civil liberties, even if it was legal.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)called by someone, can be obtained without a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
Read all about it. We shall see whether the First Amendment trumps that holding.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Or voice mail or recordings of the content of the calls?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)and the articles I read were not specific.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)but you make a good point. I should figure out what I'm talking about before forming an opinion.
ms liberty
(8,596 posts)When it is appropriate...I commend you for your honest and fair response. Here at DU, oftentimes we don't see that, do we (lol!).
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)but I knew that days ago...
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)that you do not. That's how it goes.
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)but that does not make it a fact.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)You believe you know absolutely everything? It must be amazing to be all knowing. I myself am human and not a deity.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)"... as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."
Sam
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)I do have a job and I am fairly aware of the world around me, unlike the person I replied to. So I am a bit confused as to your point?
timdog44
(1,388 posts)and I did not know that. How does that fit into your not so civil posting.
I watched the above discourse and saw it resolved in a very civil manner and then up popped the devil, I mean, zerosumgame0005
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)gets a pass for his nonsense?
timdog44
(1,388 posts)leave that up to you. I know what I think. Actually I think you do too.
obama2terms
(563 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's all they would need in the initial stages of an investigation of a leak.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)independent judiciary. Lots of things are legal without being right.
but I suppose if you lived in Germany in the 30s you'd be parroting that the Nuremberg Laws were legal, damnit!
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)The defeated bill would have required approval from a federal court before reporters phone records were subpoenaed. Darrell Issa, who condemned the AP subpoena Monday, was one of only 21 House Members to vote against the bill.
Late Monday afternoon, the AP broke the news that months worth of its telephone records had been divulged in response to a broad government subpoena. The Department of Justice issued the subpoena to the APs telephone company, without notifying AP itself, as part of the criminal investigation of a national security leak. Investigators obtained the call logs of numerous AP reporters and editors for a period spanning April and May of 2012 as a result of the subpoena. Last Friday, the DOJ delivered a letter to the AP revealing the subpoena and the records that had been obtained as a result.
The Department of Justice told NBC News that it had acted consistent with DOJ regulations in obtaining the call logs. The applicable regulations do permit the DOJ to subpoena the phone records of a news organization without prior notice only if the DOJ determines that such prior notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and the Attorney General approves.
Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/gop-congressmen-killed-a-media-shield-law-that-wou-4xje
freshwest
(53,661 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)the DOJ did get a warrant. DOJ has done nothing illegal as others has stated. It is just pushing the rightwing propaganda. The facts are certain groups are still trying to attach corruption to this Administration instead of focusing on the country's more important issues. The American people have grown too smart for these political games. All this stuff will backfire on these groups in the end.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)Weren't there accusations out there that this might have been secretly leaked by the White House to the AP to look good?
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)not a warrant. They never went to a judge. It does appear that what they did was legal, but I still consider it a violation of civil liberties. There is nothing right wing about it. I'm not going to decide infractions of civil liberties are okay as long as the government carrying it out is headed by Democrats rather than Republicans.
cali
(114,904 posts)No judge issues or reviews such subpoenas and it is grotesque. yes, it's "legal". So were the Nuremberg laws so lets stop with the "if it's legal, it's all good" idiocy.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Cha
(297,652 posts)based information!?!
thanks Galraedia
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)is the one that will get ignored.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/absolutely_outrageous_big_brother_is_listening/
Gman
(24,780 posts)You just might get it.
I don't like the whole idea but I've no love for AP either. So it's hard to get real upset about this.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)tanyev
(42,610 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)it's a straight out attack on the current administration. Even their lies and deceit (such as rewording the released emails to their liking), have no effect or shame on the GOP.
It's either because the country is slowly improving economically (and the GOP wants to bury it in the press), or because Obama/Dems had the gall to try and pass gun legislation.
Something's going on here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)They'll start recycling poutrages soon.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Up2Late
(17,797 posts)timdog44
(1,388 posts)it seems to me that confusion reigns. There have been some disagreements, one at least that was settled amicably. The big things that are going on where there is disagreement are 1) Benghazi 2) IRS oversight of tax exempt groups and 3) AP phone call interceptions. It is hard for me to believe that what is happening here is not easily seen by this group. These are all bullshit "crises" perpetrated by the right wing to discredit the administration and its policies. All have been disproved. All this along with the 37th vote to abolish the Affordable Care Act are to prevent anything meaningful to happen in congress. The IRS thing is especially odious, because "they" are using it as a means to prevent final enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Because by discrediting the IRS they will discredit the ability of that department from administering the ACA. And this is a real crisis. And it was fomented by a republican official in the IRS who failed to do her job and then squealed to the authorities as if she had nothing to do with it. She should have done her job and there would never had been even a hint of impropriety. And actually the numbers show that no political persuasion was targeted any more than any other. One crisis that is not getting the attention that it truly deserves is the sexual abuse taking place in our military which is being covered up by upper echelon officers. And this one thing is something the right wing is not all up in arms about.
And all this overshadows the news that the deficit is plunging and that austerity is a failed program. Jobs and economy are what we should be focusing on. A rambling discourse on what I think about all this.