AP: Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

[Larry]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.

Now THAT'S something I certainly didn't know. Learn something new every day.

----------

Although now I'm remembering a scene from the Dirty Harry movie where he has a woman partner. They introduce her character in a scene in which Harry is on a review panel who's questioning applicants who are seeking to become inspectors. )(And Tyne Daly is the applicant.)

Harry, when challenged to come up with a question for the applicant which is sufficiently PC, spins this scenario in which Harry supposedly approaches this officer and proposes all kinds of shocking and deviant sexual things to her.

The other members of the board object to Harry's harassment of this applicant. Harry replies that he wants to know if anybody in this room knows which crime is being committed, here.

And Daly answers that Harry (in his scenario) is guilty of Conspiracy to Commit a Misdemeanor, which, she points out, is a felony.

----------

That line has stuck in my head for decades. Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony.

----------

Dumb question:

In order to obtain the journalist's email/phone/whatever, is it necessary for the warrant to accuse the journalist of a crime? Do they have to do that, to get the warrant?

Or can they obtain it, by saying "we have probable cause to believe that the leaker sent this person an email, and the leaker committed a crime"?

[visionary]

Wow.

Who knew that publishing classified material was illegal?

Or that conspiring with someone to get them to give you classified material was illegal, too?

And to think . . . the government didn't inform a suspect that they were going to be executing a search warrant?

And here's the most chilling section: The officer requesting the warrant swears under oath that he has probable cause!

Yeah, I don't really understand why this new info is so upsetting, but a lot of the media is outraged by it.

[twa]

Dumb question:

In order to obtain the journalist's email/phone/whatever, is it necessary for the warrant to accuse the journalist of a crime? Do they have to do that, to get the warrant?

Or can they obtain it, by saying "we have probable cause to believe that the leaker sent this person an email, and the leaker committed a crime"?

if he was not a member of the press obtaining a warrant would not be difficult, but freedom of the press has been taken liberally by prior administrations

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/20/how-president-obama-got-out-of-balance-on-leaks/

How President Obama got out of balance on leaks

Here’s a stunning fact: The Obama Administration has prosecuted more government officials for leaking than all previous administrations combined.

Combine that eye-popper with the Justice Department’s secret culling of months of phone records from AP reporters and the surveillance — there’s really no other word for it — of Fox News Channel’s James Rosen and it’s clear that the careful balance President Obama pledged to maintain between national security and the 1st Amendment appears to have gotten out of whack.

To be clear: No one is alleging that the federal government broke any laws in either the AP or Rosen cases. But, it’s also quite clear that the Obama Administration is aggressively attacking leakers and the journalistic leekees (is that a word?) in a way that is entirely different than past administrations.

While Obama’s senior team insists these decisions were made independently of him, there’s clearly a tone being set from the top down — and it’s a tone that Obama has long held, dating back to his days as a candidate. Obama and his top campaign aides prided themselves during the 2008 and 2012 races for their tight-knittedness and their lack of leaks. The “no drama Obama” mantra became a point of pride. And, that lack of drama — particularly when it comes to issues like the IRS and AP — runs counter (either directly or indirectly) to Obama’s past pledges to be the “most transparent administration in history.”

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Got to be the first scandal in the history of the world where nothing illegal or backhanded was done. The only time someone followed all the rules in doing what they are supposed to do, but now are accused of some nefarious wrongdoing.

If this wasn't the press that was violated, the press would not be covering this so closely.

[visionary]

Got to be the first scandal in the history of the world where nothing illegal or backhanded was done. The only time someone followed all the rules in doing what they are supposed to do, but now are accused of some nefarious wrongdoing.

If this wasn't the press that was violated, the press would not be covering this so closely.

I wonder how people would feel if this was a Romney or Bush administration scandal.

It's been somewhat embarassing though. International journalists and activists are tearing us up over this.

At the moment press freedom in the US looks very bad around the world, especially when we need to be setting an example.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I wonder how people would feel if this was a Romney or Bush administration scandal.

It's been somewhat embarassing though. International journalists and activists are tearing us up over this.

At the moment press freedom in the US looks very bad around the world, especially when we need to be setting an example.

It wouldn't be a scandal. I would consider it an example of bad law and policy. And I still do. But there is a difference between "scandal" and bad policy.

[visionary]

It wouldn't be a scandal. I would consider it an example of bad law and policy. And I still do. But there is a difference between "scandal" and bad policy.

Fair enough, although I think pretty much anything can be made into a scandal, lol.

(I do find it a bit weird that something from a few years ago is getting everyone so angry though)

Here's another take on the Rosen situation:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/05/20/what-was-james-rosen-thinking/

Just open your Twitter feed and listen to the Washington press corps howl about the Obama administration’s latest intrusion into their business.

From the mainstream we hear the grousing of Washington Post National Political Editor Steven Ginsberg, Washington reporter John Solomon and the Associated Press’s Matt Apuzzo. From the partisan corners come the protests of the Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson, the New Yorker‘s Ryan Lizza, Fox News Channel’s Brit Hume, the Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald and the chronically underemployed Keith Olbermann. All deplore, in vociferous terms, the excesses of a Department of Justice leak investigation that has criminalized the reporting of Fox News Channel’s James Rosen.

While I join this chorus of rage, I also wonder how much of Rosen’s trouble is of his own making. Did Rosen get caught and get his source in trouble because he practiced poor journalistic tradecraft?

And some more info on the AP issue:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18377209-dojs-secret-subpoena-of-ap-phone-records-broader-than-initially-revealed

DOJ's secret subpoena of AP phone records broader than initially revealed

The Justice Department’s secret subpoena for AP phone records included the seizure of records for five reporters' cellphones and three home phones as well as two fax lines, a lawyer for the news organization tells NBC News.

David Schulz, the chief lawyer for the AP, said the subpoenas also covered the records for 21 phone lines in five AP office lines -- including one for a dead phone line at office in Washington that had been shut down six years ago. The phone lines at four other offices – where 100 reporters worked — were also covered by the subpoenas, Schulz said.

Although AP had given general information about the subpoenas last week, it provided new details Monday about the number of cell and home phone records as it considers possible legal action against the Justice Department.

[USS Redskins]

Obama has had the most friendly press in US history, at least my lifetime... If this were Bush or Romney, the press would be burning The White House down in their furor.... Except foxnews, of course, they would blow it off..

[twa]

Got to be the first scandal in the history of the world where nothing illegal or backhanded was done. The only time someone followed all the rules in doing what they are supposed to do, but now are accused of some nefarious wrongdoing.

If this wasn't the press that was violated, the press would not be covering this so closely.

The AP lawyers certainly assert that bolded part is not the case.

It will be fun to watch the outrage from the coddled press.....almost like a jilted lover

[PeterMP]

The AP lawyers certainly assert that bolded part is not the case.

It will be fun to watch the outrage from the coddled press.....almost like a jilted lover

I must have missed that. What are the AP lawyers saying was done wrong?

[twa]

I must have missed that. What are the AP lawyers saying was done wrong?

DOJ did not inform AP of its investigation, and said the agency violated its own rules by failing to narrow its records request as much as possible.

“Under their own rules, they are required to narrow this request as narrowly as possible so as to not tread upon the First Amendment. And yet they had a broad, sweeping collection. And they did it secretly,” Pruitt said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2TnTC2SC4

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

they have a few other points,but those are the highlights

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html

Obama administration mistakes journalism for espionage

The Obama administration has no business rummaging through journalists’ phone records, perusing their e-mails and tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from gathering news. This heavy-handed business isn’t chilling, it’s just plain cold.

It also may well be unconstitutional. In my reading, the First Amendment prohibition against “abridging the freedom . . . of the press” should rule out secretly obtaining two months’ worth of the personal and professional phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, including calls to and from the main AP phone number at the House press gallery in the Capitol. Yet this is what the Justice Department did.

The unwarranted snooping, which was revealed last week, would be troubling enough if it were an isolated incident. But it is part of a pattern that threatens to redefine investigative reporting as criminal behavior.

Even Eugene Robinson is pissed.

[Larry]

Wow.

Y'know, I bet tomorrow, there's gonna be another editorial that tries to claim that "printing classified information" equals "investigative journalism".

[twa]

Wow.

Y'know, I bet tomorrow, there's gonna be another editorial that tries to claim that "printing classified information" equals "investigative journalism".

It was considered so while W was in office

[Tulane Skins Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html

Even Eugene Robinson is pissed.

Its a good thing for Eugene Robinson that he's not a constitutional lawyer.

[visionary]

https://twitter.com/HannahAllam

State Dept: We support the freedom of the press.

AP's Matt Lee: Do you?

State: We do.

Lee: Just this building or the whole administration?
1:07 PM

AP's Matt Lee: So you're also opposed to harassment, intimidation of journos?

State Dept: We are.

Lee: So, you're opposed to this admin?
1:09 PM

lol, press briefings are going to be fierce for a while.

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/roger-ailes-doj-investigation-will-not-stand-the-test-164702.html

Roger Ailes: DOJ investigation will not stand 'the test of law'

By DYLAN BYERS |
5/23/13 6:10 PM EDT

Fox News chief Roger Ailes has sent the following memo to staff regarding the Justice Dept.'s investigation into reporter James Rosen:
 

Dear colleagues,

The recent news about the FBI’s seizure of the phone and email records of Fox News employees, including James Rosen, calls into question whether the federal government is meeting its constitutional obligation to preserve and protect a free press in the United States. We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.

Bit of an exaggeration there....

[visionary]

Front Page headline on Huffington Post.com:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

 

TIME TO GO: HOLDER OK'D PRESS PROBE

 

Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

 

Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen's personal email, NBC News' Michael Isikoff reported Thursday.

 

The report places Holder at the center one of the most controversial clashes between the press and the government in recent memory. The warrant he approved named Rosen as a "co-conspirator" in a leak investigation, causing many to warn that the Justice Department was potentially criminalizing journalism. The warrant also approved the tracking of Rosen's movements in and out of the State Department, as well as his communications with his source, Stephen Kim.

 

The Justice Department later said that it did not intend to press any charges against Rosen. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wow.

Y'know, I bet tomorrow, there's gonna be another editorial that tries to claim that "printing classified information" equals "investigative journalism".

 

 

Uh, it is.

 

Or else we might as well just print gov't press releases and call that "news" 

[Larry]

Front Page headline on Huffington Post.com:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

You know who else signed off on the warrant to obtain those records?

A judge.

He looked at the evidence, and he said "yep. That's probable cause".

And he looked at the list of what they wanted, and he said "yep. Those are reasonable things to ask for".

And he looked at the laws, and he said "yep. The laws say that's legal".

It's one of the nice things about warrants. It gets somebody else to check your reasoning.

[Larry]

Uh, it is.

Really? There is NO DIFFERENCE between the terms "investigative journalism" and "printing classified material"?

Cause, that's what "equals" means, you know.

Journalism simply cannot exist without classified information, huh?

[twa]

that would depend on how much they classify 

[visionary]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html

How Prosecutors Fought to Keep Rosen’s Warrant Secret

 

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.

 

The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

 

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

 

Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.

[visionary]

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/05/24/what-war-on-the-press/

What war on the press?

 

President Barack Obama has declared war on the press, say writers at Slate, the Daily Beast, Reason, the Washington Post (Jennifer Rubin, Dana Milbank and Leonard Downie Jr.), Commentary, National Journal (Ron Fournier), the New York Times editorial page, CBS News, Fox News (Roger Ailes) and even Techdirt. Scores of other scribes and commentators have filed similar dispatches about this or that federal prosecution “chilling” the press and pulping the First Amendment. Downie, who could open an aquatics center with the leaks his reporters collected during his 17 years as executive editor of the Washington Post, calls the “war on leaks … the most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration.”

Of course, the work that journalists do is important, and yes, I want more openness from the administration and less vindictive approaches to leakers. But to fully comprehend the press corps’ complaints, it helps to understand that the press lobbies ‑ just like any other interest group whose privilege is threatened by government laws, policies and prosecutions. Inordinately sensitive to any changes in the standard source-reporter customs, the Washington press corps revolts at even minor changes in their status. Obama’s wholesale deflation of their standing has made comrades out of ideological enemies. How else to explain Len Downie hollering “Nixon” at the same time Fox News’s Roger Ailes is invoking “McCarthy” to denounce the Obama administration?

 

Suppression of the press contains in it the seeds of its own destruction. Or at least I like to think so. By bottling up information and limiting the opportunity of the press (and civilians) to scrutinize it, politicians lose the faith of some of the most ardent supporters and inspire professional doubters and free-thinkers in the press to redouble their efforts. Obama’s campaign against leaks can only succeed if he exterminates all second-guessing from inside the national security establishment. And seeing as the president is only a short-timer and the national security establishment is permanent, and constitutes an interest group as well, all his victories over leakers and the press will be temporary.