AP denounces US' seizure of journalists' records

[JollyRoger]

Too bad the two false cries for wolf have made this potentially real call not being heeded.

 

[peter grimes]

He should be indicted for NOT enforcing the law(s)

You don't understand how things work. It's impossible to enforce all the laws all the time. Even DPRK can't manage that, and it's the most successful police state in history.

This naturally leads to the concept of Prosecutorial Discretion. Society has to pick and choose which violations to prioritize, since there are finite resources available.

It's just like in Civ - you can't build everything in every city. There are costs.

 

[MobBoss]

Ooops. Wrong thread.

Yeah. This be bad. Real bad. I mean terri-bad (or is it horri-bad?).

 

[Antilogic]

Too bad the two false cries for wolf have made this potentially real call not being heeded.

Only 2?

 

[DinoDoc]

House Judiciary investigating whether Holder lied under oath

The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.

The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material -- this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

However, NBC News reported last week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.

The panel is investigating whether NBC’s report contradicts Holder’s claim that he had not looked into or been involved with a possible prosecution of the press in a leaks case.

Holder’s testimony at the hearing came before Justice’s actions against Rosen had become public. The hearing was held after The Associated Press revealed the Department of Justice had secretly subpoenaed its phone records in a separate leaks investigation.

Johnson defended the attorney general, saying Holder’s statement was specific to the line of questioning about the Espionage Act and not meant to pertain to other investigations.

“The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” he told The Hill. “My point remains that the law as written could be misused. Congress is responsible for protecting the press while giving law enforcement the tools to prosecute officials who leak classified information. I support considering amendments to the Espionage Act and passing the Free Flow of Information Act to refine this balance.”

The DOJ did not return a request for comment.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the second-ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, told The Hill that Holder should resign.

He accused Holder of misleading the panel during the investigation of the Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation, and again when he claimed to not know about the AP probe.

“As we saw in Fast and Furious and are seeing now, Attorney General Holder refuses to hold himself accountable,” he said. “He misled the Judiciary Committee under oath when he said he had not heard about Fast and Furious and he misled us again when he claimed to be unaware of the AP scandal. The head of DOJ should be someone the American people can trust. Attorney General Holder should resign.”

The DOJ seized Rosen’s personal emails and used other surveillance methods to investigate whether he was complicit in a leak of classified information. It also examined Rosen’s phone records and tracked his visits to the State Department using security-badge data during the 2009 probe.

Justice filed legal papers saying Rosen may have acted as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” by getting materials from a government official also under investigation.

The investigation was primarily focused on rooting out Rosen’s source, said a State Department worker who is facing federal charges for disclosing classified national security information and could see a trial as soon as next year.

The DOJ has also faced criticism over its seizure of phone records belonging to the AP. Unlike the Rosen case, the AP was never a target of that investigation.

The House voted to find Holder in contempt over his refusal to turn over documents to lawmakers on Fast and Furious, an operation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms purposely allowed guns to be illegally purchased in the United States and Mexico in the hope they could be tracked.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-investigating-whether-holder-lied-under-oath

In defense of the House Panel doing the investigating before people say it is a political attack. His answer to Congress regarding an inquiry:

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

Was categorical, broad, and entirely false.

 

[JollyRoger]

Getting a warrant and conducting a full blown prosecution are two diffeent things.

 

[DinoDoc]

Getting a warrant and conducting a full blown prosecution are two diffeent things.

The journalist in question was refered to in legal filings as a criminal co-conspirator and as a flight risk in legal filings. In what way do you describe that as anything other than a potential prosecution and a bald-faced lie to Congress?

 

[JollyRoger]

aider, abetter, and/or co-conspirator - typical legalese - doesn't mean he was a target of prosecution

 

[DinoDoc]

aider, abetter, and/or co-conspirator - typical legalese -

Citation needed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

 

[DinoDoc]

Citation needed.

You're the one making the defense of Holder, not I. I'm simply interested in the basis of your claim that words like "aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" along with referring to the subject of the warrant as a flight risk are simply boiler plate language and not a sign of a potential prosecution?

 

[JollyRoger]

You're the one making the defense of Holder, not I. I'm simply interested in the basis of your claim that words like "aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" along with referring to the subject of the warrant as a flight risk are simply boiler plate language and not a sign of a potential prosecution?

If it wasn't boilerplate, then it would have specified which category and why, not the and/or generality nonsense. Second, if it was the basis for a prosecution, there would be a prosecution.

You really should consider getting off the citation needed kick - you tend to ask for them when the better response would seem to be to argue why the given opinion may be wrong.

I didn't ask you for a citation for your opinion that Holder was lying - I merely argued that you were overreading certain language and ascribing more nefarity to it than was actually there.

 

[peter grimes]

You're the one making the defense of Holder, not I.

Don't mistake an explanation of incorrect interpretation for a defense. 2 totally different things.

If someone says "Hitler tried to kill all the things", and I reply "No, he didn't.", am I defending Hitler?

 

[DinoDoc]

If it wasn't boilerplate, then it would have specified which category and why, not the and/or generality nonsense.

The warrant specifically (and with Holder's signature and involvement) accused him of being involved in a criminal conspiracy to deliver secrets to the enemy in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 and referred to him as a potential flight risk. Does this really sound like standard language to you?

As for the citation needed "kick", I use it when I'm interested in the basis for the opinion being expressed. If the person in question can't provide a cogent basis for the opinion expressed, why do I have to argue it is wrong?

 

[JollyRoger]

It referrred to him as fitting into one to three categories in regards to a conspiracy & flight risk is put in when there is flight risk. I am not denying that Holder was involved - I am just saying he was involved in a warrant application - not a prosecution. I'll change my mind when you cite me to an indictment of the journalist.

 

[DinoDoc]

Don't mistake an explanation of incorrect interpretation for a defense. 2 totally different things.

If someone says "Hitler tried to kill all the things", and I reply "No, he didn't.", am I defending Hitler?

The question asked was, How was his statement not a bald-faced lie to Congress? The answer I've gotten is that it is common practice to refer to anyone at all as a criminal co-conspirator and potential flight risks in legal filings before the court and doesn't indicate the potential for a prosecution. Which just sounds odd to me. However if this doesn't indicate a defense of the man to you, what would qualify in your opinion?

 

[JollyRoger]

It's not a bald-faced lie if there is no prosecution, no matter how much you want to ignore the common method of drafting legal documents by recycling boilerplate. You keep using criminal co-conspirator when the actual language was "and/or conspirator".

 

[peter grimes]

if this doesn't indicate a defense of the man to you, what would qualify in your opinion?

A defense of Holder would qualify, not simply a correction of a mis-interpretation of a document

 

[MobBoss]

It's not a bald-faced lie if there is no prosecution, no matter how much you want to ignore the common method of drafting legal documents by recycling boilerplate. You keep using criminal co-conspirator when the actual language was "and/or conspirator".

While I get what you are saying, I don't think it's a given that the Attorney General of the United States uses 'boiler plate' anything. They pay a crapload of money to people to draft that stuff up from scratch for him.

Holder's already been held in contempt from Congress. This is just another example he's bad publicity for Obama. I mean the guy even has democrat congressmen after him as well now, and when you can even rely on your own team to back you that's when something is definitely up.

 

[DinoDoc]

A defense of Holder would qualify, not simply a correction of a mis-interpretation of a document

Either he lied to Congress or he lied to the judge.