White House: ‘No Knowledge’ Of DOJ Collecting AP Phone Records

[ProSense]

White House: ‘No Knowledge’ Of DOJ Collecting AP Phone Records

The White House has “no knowledge of any attempt” by the Department of Justice to collect the phone records of Associated Press journalists, press secretary Jay Carney said Monday night.

<...>

“We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department. Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice,” he added.

The news organization announced on Monday that DOJ “secretly obtained” two months of telephone records from reporters and editors employed at the international news agency in April and May of 2012, characterizing the action as a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into its news gathering. The records listed incoming and outgoing calls and the duration of each call made on the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn.

Although DOJ has not yet said why it subpoenaed the records, the AP suggests it involves a probe on the leaking of government information about a foiled terror plot in Yemen last year.

- more -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/white-house-no-knowledge-of-doj-collecting-ap-phone-records.php

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[Dawson Leery]

2. kick

[monmouth3]

3. I'd wager Holder is gone by the end of the week. The President has to be embarrassed..n/t

[woo me with science]

24. I don't know. This is not the government I grew up with.

It seems to me that the corporatization of our government has been accompanied by a very disturbing change in attitude toward the people and our civil protections. Under Bush and now Obama, the stripping of our civil liberties and implementation of privacy invasions has become pretty damned brazen. The attitude to me feels more like, "What are you gonna do about it?"

I wish I were as confident as you that this will garner any shame at all. You can see from the usual apologist mouthpieces here that the arrogant spin in defense of the outrageous has already begun.

[MADem]

37. I doubt it. Nixon did that kind of thing, and got in enormous trouble for

trying to control what should be an independent judiciary.

Has everyone forgotten Elliot Richardson? Robert Bork? Those smartass bumper stickers that said "Impeach the Cox Sacker?"

Why should Obama be "embarrassed?" First, he's not the Attorney General, and second, he doesn't tell the Attorney General how to conduct investigations.

[woo me with science]

39. The buck stops over there!

[MADem]

43. Are you old enough to remember Watergate?

Elliot Richardson, the firing of Archibald Cox, all of that Executive interference in the Justice Department?

It's why Robert Bork got the down-check on his confirmation hearings; why the Senate was determined to drag him over the coals, excoriate him, and then kick him in the ass on the way out the door.

It's not cool for a President to shoot first/ask questions later when it comes to the Judiciary. It should be independent. It should not be politicized.

Quick isn't always good.

What's your hurry?

[woo me with science]

45. "It should not be politicized,"

yet the denials and excuses are already in!

[MADem]

53. What denials and excuses?

If you have any questions, don't direct them towards the Executive Branch, aim them at that "independent judiciary" and make sure you have a full understanding of the law the judicial branch was operating under before you make any suggestions of malfeasance. You might be surprised. Or disappointed--hard to read your desires re: this matter, really.

Or stand over with the Fox News team and throw feces...whatever. They're leading the charge with the straw man assumptions and phony accusations.

[NCTraveler]

56. There is a reason you put "independent judiciary" in quotation marks.

Even when attempting to make the argument you are.

[MADem]

57. Yes, it's a foundational concept. nt

[NCTraveler]

59. Correct, it is a concept. nt

[MADem]

61. As are most ideas we find in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. nt

[madokie]

47. Speaking of the Watergate hearings

I was lucky in that I worked evenings during that time and got to watch most of the hearings because of that.
I guess I could say that is what brought me up to speed, really opened my eyes, on what was happening in our government. Almost as corrupt back then as it is now. RepubliCON wise that is.

[MADem]

55. I had an oddball schedule too.

I saw a lot of it, myself, and we had a TV at work, that we'd occasionally drag out when I had to be there and things were getting good.

Isn't it funny that back in those days, no one could punch a button and "save" a show for later, or even 'record' it on videotape (unless one was a real videophile and had a fortune to spend on equipment). The things we take for granted, nowadays!

[madokie]

58. Yes it is amazing how things have changed

My dad was born in 1897 and we would talk about how much things had changed in his lifetime. Just think of the changes we've gone though since he was born. I remember him saying that the first job he had as a kid paid him 25 cents for 6 days of work, sun up to sun down. A few years later when he was 15 he and his two year older brother had a whiskey still and they'd make more in a day than they could working in the fields for a week. To put it in perspective he said that a 50 pound sack of potatos went for a nickel, a loaf of bread was 2 cents

[Zen Democrat]

51. We didn't have a Patriot Act when Nixon was president.

Thank the Republicans and Blue Dogs like Lieberman for that travesty. NOW they bellow when it hits them. Uncovering a leak in national security is serious business best left to the Justice Department. Nixon and Kissinger headed up the hunt for the leak INSIDE the White House and they were called PLUMBERS.

Obama has nothing to answer for here. Holder used the current law to do his part to find the executive branch national security leaker. The Patriot Act covers that and it doesn't require prior approval.

[MADem]

52. Indeed. It won't stop the bums from going after Obama, but it's not 'on' him.

That won't stop the scandal-mongerers and shit-maker-uppers, sadly.

We used to have Civics in schools when Nixon was President--that was one bright spot in a dark era.

[woo me with science]

4. The buck stops somewhere over there,

as usual.

[ProSense]

5. Hey,

"The buck stops somewhere over there, as usual."

...maybe this will lead to Obama's impeachment if the "buck stops" there.

[woo me with science]

6. Gee, do you think that outrage over surveillance of the press

could finally lead to outrage over surveillance of private citizens?

Yeah, those pipe dreams are really funny, aren't they.

[ProSense]

8. There

"Gee, do you think that outrage over egregious surveillance subpoena of phone records of the press..."

...fixed! Keeping the facts straight is important. In fact, the initial reports failed to indicate that a subpoena was issued.

Here's a good response from the comments at Think Progress.

Matthew Rusk

The SCOTUS ruled in Smith v Maryland in1979 that who you call is not constitutionally protected because you have no expectation of privacy since you gave that number to the phone company. There is no constitutional need for a warrant, though Congress has the right to pass legislation requiring it (which I do not believe they have done). The AP is complaining that their First Amendment right as journalists are being threatened or interfered with, but they didn't seem to mind while private citizens have had their First Amendment rights to speech and free association threatened in the same way for almost 25 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/13/2005021/doj-yemen-aqap/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press’ Records
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022838537

Justice subpoenaed AP phone records, news service says
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022838649

[woo me with science]

14. Ah, so you are actually *defending* government surveillance of journalists.

Your apologia is brazen enough to argue that this is just fine. Although it's still important to you to clarify that the President didn't know!

But I guess covering all bases is important extra insurance. Just like Chained CPI is Superlative, and Drone Murders are Legal, Ethical, and Wise.

You just can't beat a ProSense Commercial to end your day with. It's like living in the Best of All Possible Presidential Terms, All the Time!

[Logical]

19. LOL, classic! You nailed it! n-t

[ProSense]

20. LOL! No more than you're OK with declaring guilt without all the facts.

"Ah, so you are *okay* with surveilling journalists. "

I mean, the report states that the records were subpoenaed and the DOJ apparently acted within the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022840092

I'm sure there will be more information forthcoming.

[Bonobo]

34. So why did you lead with "Obama didn't know!"

if it was such appropriate behavior.

THAT is the question.

Surely you can see why it appears duplicitous.

[ProSense]

36. What? n/t

[Bonobo]

38. Your fervent need

to separate the WH from the actions of the Justic Dept. belies your defense that "it is no big deal".

[ProSense]

40. Hey,

"Your fervent need to separate the WH from the actions of the Justic Dept. belies your defense that 'it is no big deal'."

...you don't have to believe the WH statement. In fact, I doubt you're the only person who believes the WH was involved.

Also, thanks for sharing your insights about me.

[Marr]

25. You said it.

'He didn't know! Also, it was the right thing to do!'

Jesus. What a fucking joke.

[ProSense]

29. They

'He didn't know! Also, it was the right thing to do!'

Jesus. What a fucking joke.

...impeached Clinton for lying. You think Obama is lying?

I'm fairly certain that nothing is going to change the mind of anyone who believes the WH statement is a lie.

[Logical]

48. And....

Nothing will change the mind of someone who thinks the president is perfect!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Remind me who Holder's boss is? Or, is this just the usual "I know nothing!" defense?

[ProSense]

9. It's coming

"Remind me who Holder's boss is? Or, is this just the usual 'I know nothing!' defense?"

..."What did the President know, and when did he know it." Be patient, Republicans are working on it. Patience.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Is he not responsibile or what his appointees do? Or, does the buck stop elsewhere?

Or, does he think that violating the freedom of the press by his underlings is just an "Oh, well" moment?

[ProSense]

16. Sure

"Is he not responsibile or what his appointees do? Or, does the buck stop elsewhere? Or, does he think that violating the freedom of the press by his underlings is just an "Oh, well" moment?"

Can he control their every move? No.

Still, what exactly is your point?

The DOJ subpoenaed AP phone records: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022840092

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The point is freedom of the press and can Obama declare that Holder overstepped?

[ProSense]

26. Who said he "overstepped"?

Has there been an investigation? There report indicates that the DOJ issued a subpoena. The AP is upset about the scope. Others wonder if the DOJ cast too broad a net, but without the DOJ's explanation, nothing in the report indicates wrong doing on the DOJ's part.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. AP is saying he overstepped. Do you agree with the subpoenas?

Is there freedom of the press in this country any more? Or, is allowed only at the whim of the DOJ?

[ProSense]

32. Oooh,

"AP is saying he overstepped. Do you agree with the subpoenas?"

...as many times as AP has been caught pushing bullshit, including racist articles, you simply take their word?

Yes, I prefer a subpoena be issued, but without all the facts what am supposed to be agreeing with?

You don't have all the facts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. I'd sure as hell take their word over the DOJ and CIA.

Of course, we all know that neither of them ever, ever, perish the though, ever lie.

[ProSense]

35. Cool,

"I'd sure as hell take their word over the DOJ and CIA...Of course, we all know that neither of them ever, ever, perish the though, ever lie."

...you don't need the facts. The AP report is enough, and the WH statement is a lie. Case closed.

[Cha]

10. the asshole republicon Benghazi shit for brains will be

all over that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Why isn't Obama "all over" Holder for pulling such an egregious attack on the freedom of the press?

[Cha]

15. I'm not even sure it is an egregious act. I tend to wait and see what

all the facts are before jumping all over Holder/Pres Obama. Unlike some on the internet who have the pitchforks at the ready.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. And, who's going to report it an egregious act if the DOJ has warrants at the ready?

The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom...of the press.." What part of "no" does Holder and his boss not get?

[ProSense]

22. Oh brother

"The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom...of the press.." What part of "no" does Holder and his boss not get? "

...reporters get supoenaed all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter's_privilege#Judith_Miller_brings_reporter.27s_privilege_to_the_forefront_of_media_attention

People appear to be latching onto buzz words and making up the law as they go along.

The first reports of this incident didn't mention the subpoena, and I can only wonder why.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. So, because it "happens all the time" makes it right?

Would you be saying the same things if Bush's DOJ had done the same thing?

[ProSense]

31. No

"So, because it 'happens all the time' makes it right?"

...I think the law has something to do with issuing a subpoena, even to the press. As far as I know, it's legal.

[woo me with science]

21. Of course you aren't.

[MADem]

41. The judiciary is also independent. Obama can't tell him that he must

investigate something or someone, anymore than he can tell him to NOT investigate something or someone.

This needs to play out. I don't know if we're getting the full story, here.

[Rex]

13. I'd only be shocked if they said they knew about it.

Of course they had no knowledge of the DOJ 'collecting' records, I think Cheney had the entire department moved to an undisclosed location before he fled office.

[MrSlayer]

23. Where were all the outraged when we tried to stop this shit?

The patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, spying and whatnot. Just where were these people? Cheering it all on no doubt.

[woo me with science]

30. And you wouldn't want to be just like them now, would you?

You wouldn't want NOT to be outraged about a clear wrong, just because this is a Democratic administration, would you?

Because that would make you just like them, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could ALL be outraged about what is clearly wrong, together? Because then, if we were ....*gasp*....to unite on the concept of Right versus Wrong, maybe we could actually get some of these fucking outrages to stop.

[MrSlayer]

44. Absolutely not.

It was bad under Bush, it's equally as bad now. I know it's kind of verboten to say so around here but in many ways this administration is even worse than they were. Took the ball and ran even further.

I agree with you. I'm just as pissed at these things now as I was then but I don't see a lot of support for that viewpoint here or in Democratic circles in general. And I know the second a Republican gets back into office the righties will abandon the position. The chances of getting any of this to stop are as close to zero as you can get without it being impossible.

[woo me with science]

50. I hear you, but I'd add that DU (like other political media) is relentlessly propagandized

to get people to doubt their own principles and perceptions. Part of the purpose of the propaganda is to create the feelings of helplessness and inevitability you express here.

There has been a creepy uptick in posts cheerfully announcing that we don't need these silly civil liberties and protections. It's worth noting that these posts come from the same, predictable group that defends every single corporate and war outrage coming from this administration.

I don't buy for a moment that Americans don't still cherish things like freedom of the press and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Every poll shows that we are angry as hell and feel assaulted on all sides and *not* represented by our own government.

IMO it's important to keep bringing the discussion back to the fundamentals: We are talking about our fundamental rights, freedoms, and civil protections here. We need to call out the garbage when we see it and expose the bids to circle the Red and Blue wagons around unconscionable violations of our freedoms as the manipulative propaganda it really is.

[davidpdx]

42. Well and add to the phony outrage about this

Is that this was supposedly about the AP was reporting classified information about a US operative. When Valarie Plame was outed DU was on full outrage mode. If this person had been killed due to the Associated Press's actions would people have said, "Oh well"? I very much doubt it.

[TheKentuckian]

63. Outraged, trying to stop it not making excuses and lame justifications.

I find it damn difficult to believe there are many numbered among those with little concern ever gave a shit about civil liberties other than a convenient cudgel for partisan politics as much as I give any credence to shit eating TeaPubliKlans ginning up crocodile tears when they have breathed fire and shit lightening in pursuit of these exact sort of policies.

You give a fuck or you don't it doesn't matter about who or what party not an iota because we aren't talking games or "fix it later" bullshit, there is a line none to thick between citizen and subject, playing dodgeball with it is fucking foolish on the best of days.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. It is obviously untrue that "The White House has no knowledge". Even the press secretary is aware.

[SidDithers]

49. DU Rec...

Love that all the usual suspects are totally outraged again.




Sid

[Summer Hathaway]

54. They're still reeling

from the "Loyalty Day" scandal ...

[JaneyVee]

60. YIKES, can't anyone here wait for facts/evidence before jumping to conclusions and bashing the Prez?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. The Republicans have egg on their face

egg on (one's) face Informal
Embarrassment; humiliation: If you do that, you'll end up with egg on your face.