Help me out: If the AP info was so Important, Why Not Just Get a Warrant?

[snot]

Given how many people within the government had to be aware of this investigation already, adding one more judge, also sworn to secrecy, shouldn't have increased the risk significantly. (I don't think there's any history of any U.S. court leaking secret proceedings, is there?)

[sinkingfeeling]

1. They had a subpoena.

DOJ Defends Subpoenas To AP: We’re Enforcing The Law

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/doj-defends-subpoenas-to-ap-were-enforcing-law

[snot]

5. Isn't a subpoena just something the DoJ can issue without judicial review?

. . . i.e., not involving the judicial oversight that's required by the Constitution in order to prevent overbroad or otherwise unwarranted searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment and other rights.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. No, a subpoena is issued by a judge for records. A warrant is issued to

physically go get them.

A search warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to search designated premises, motor vehicles or persons and to seize specific evidence relating to a criminal investigation.
A subpoena (Latin for "under a penalty&quot is a court order. It commands the appearance of a person or the production of certain records or things.

[Yo_Mama]

10. TOTALLY WRONG

DOJ has confirmed that this was an administrative subpoena issued solely by the DOJ and not by any court.

Many branches of the government can issue administrative subpoenas. There is a special DOJ regulation which governs issuing subpoenas for phone records of news orgs, and DOJ didn't follow it:
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/regard-toll-interrogation-indictment-19679461

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Okay, and what was it they didn't do? Says that an assistant AG can issue one.

[Ms. Toad]

8. There was a grand jury involved

Although it is not clear (from anything I have seen) whether this was a grand jury subpoena or a justice department one:

"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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/under-sweeping-subpoenas-justice-department-obtained-ap-phone-records-in-leak-investigation/2013/05/13/11d1bb82-bc11-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story_1.html

[Yo_Mama]

11. It was a justice subpoena

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/holder-95-99-percent-certain-deputy-ag-authorized-subpoena-ap-phone-records

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/holder-recuses-himself-from-doj-probe-associated-press-phone-records/

[Ms. Toad]

12. I don't trust Fox news

And the other link isn't loading for me - but the caption suggests it is still speculative (strong speculation - but still unconfirmed).

Which matches the other information I've found, and paired with the fact that there apparently was a grand jury empaneled, I'll wait for the dust to settle.

[Yo_Mama]

9. Right, but the DOJ issued the subpoena

Nor, in doing so, did the DOJ follow its own procedures which should have included negotiation and notification of the subpoena to AP, which would have allowed AP to seek judicial review. The subpoena was of course sent to a third party or parties that had the records.

The policy which exists on paper is very reasonable and I would think anyone would allow that it protects against abuse. But the DOJ did NOT FOLLOW that policy. The only times when you are not supposed to notify under the policy are when doing so would prejudice the investigation, and how can that be supported here? DOJ has said that they did this well after the fact. Everyone knew they were investigating. AP did not have control over the phone records and nothing could have been altered in the phone records. Therefore nothing about notice could have prejudiced the investigation.

So the DOJ explanation doesn't wash. The only real reason for not following their own policy would have been so that AP couldn't seek judicial review, and it's almost certain that a judge would have demurred at some of this, such as getting the records for the AP phone in the House of Representatives and getting all the phone records for the main switchboard numbers. Really now.

It stinks to high heaven. If the regs as codified in 1980 were being followed as written, this would not have happened. No one is questioning that DOJ should have investigated the leak. What is improper here is the secret subpoena of a pretty broad range of press phone records, including the main access line, private lines and the AP line in the House.

Further, Holder is now defending this, and he shouldn't. Lastly, he said he recused himself, but he couldn't say when and he didn't do it in writing. That makes things stink even worse.

This is not going to go away and it shouldn't.

[Little Star]

2. Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022851430

Plus I think there was a grand jury seated on this too.

[snot]

4. I think you've got the wrong scandal--that's the IRS thing; I'm talking about the AP thing.

[Little Star]

6. Oops! Here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857122

I've been trying to get people to look at both of those issues. Sorry for the wrong link.