Busy day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.
Make a new account
I'm not sure what to think anymore. Everyday another weird storyline from this administration.
Anyone believe anything coming out of this administrations mouth?
The GOP can fix that by supporting new legislation that would require FISA warrants even in the evemt of national security. Parent
Take out "Fox News" and insert "Reason" in my comment.
BTW - You cite this article as a reason to not believe anything from this administration. Is there some evidence the administration was lying about this? Parent
The good news is that there is no evidence of Obama directing this stuff. The bad news is that this is what big government is all about.
. Parent
After the IRS thing hard to believe this is coincidence right?
NRO Parent
The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury's general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.'s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin "shortly after," he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
NY Times
Now that forced this to come out.
The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups -- saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago. Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department. Monday's revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration's account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press. (PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS) Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House's ever-shifting narrative.
Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.
Monday's revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration's account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.
(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House's ever-shifting narrative.
Link
The question, my dear GA, is not if Obama will be named as knowing all about this, but who will do it...
Rats get nervous when the water gets on their feet. Parent
The subpoenas were issued by the DOJ in an investigation of a leak of classified information. The investigation may or may not be justified. But to say it was done just to please someone's personal fancy would seem beyond any facts known so far.
And who would be that stupid? No one worth catching....
You guys really can't help yourselves.....just keep marching down that 1998 path.....that'll help you in the midterms, especially since your sacred deficit is disappearing. Parent
... you were trying to be serious. Parent
The Washington Post says:
Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant -- agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator. Machen's office said in a statement that it is limited in commenting on an open case, but that the government "exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting the evidence" before seeking a search warrant. However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.
Machen's office said in a statement that it is limited in commenting on an open case, but that the government "exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting the evidence" before seeking a search warrant.
However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.
Rosen appears to have been soliciting Kim for information - but as Glenn says:
Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist - something done every day in Washington - and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for "espionage". [snip] Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this. That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them."
[snip]
Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.
That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them."
Never in a million years did I think we'd have a "Democratic" president who seems determined to criminalize reporting/journalism.
This is bad - and I don't care if in the instant case, it's a Fox News reporter - this is bad. Parent
For example, reporting on gov't corruption is seen as a "good" thing because ideally the outcome is a better gov't.
On the other hand, a reporter revealing national security secrets just because they're secret - "In other news, last month the CIA inserted 5 operatives inside al Queda!" - while news, rarely has a positive outcome for anyone.
Or is the freedom of the press truly the most important right, regardless of potential harm to the nation/public welfare/lives/etc? Parent
The reporter should be able to ask any questions and the "government official" should answer...Sorry that's classified.
If this is now criminal then the WH press Corps breaks the "law" on a daily basis. How many times does the WH say...I can't comment on an ongoing investigation, or that is classified?
There is no excuse for this. It appears that they called him a "criminal" so they wouldn't have to inform him of the warrant.
Simply amazing..
And what was he reporting on? The fact that North Korea was going to respond to sanctions with a missile test. How is that top secret classified information? How is that worth even an investigation? Parent
Leaks which are "harmful to national security", and leaks that simply reveal our government to be engaging in torture or murder or double-dealing are seemingly interchangeable in the eyes of those who would prosecute reporters.
Did anything published by Julian Assange actually hurt our national security - or did it simply reveal a two-faced foreign policy as well as the deliberate slaughter of some Iraqi civilians?
Freedom of the press should be absolute, imo. Otherwise, it is not a free press. Parent
It's not about freedom of the press, no one at the AP is in trouble for anything they printed. They want the source of the leaked the information.
There is no right to conceal the identity of people who leak sensitive information that could endanger lives. The only shame here is that the government can't just get judicial approval for the AP to reveal the source. I am not comfortable with the government tracking the press, there is no need.
The press should look at themselves in this case, the AP should not have printed the story until they had the OK.
Wanting to be perceived as the ones who got the scoop is no excuse. Had they waited a day, there would be no issue, the government wasn't trying to keep the story hush, they just wanted to make sure no one was endanger before it was printed. Parent
There is no right to conceal the identity of people who leak sensitive information that could endanger lives.
But, it seems to be the government that is the one determining whether any specific information "could endanger lives''. And they have a penchant for using that as a cover for simply protecting their own keisters.
Reporters have a time-honored right to protect their sources, imo. Otherwise, they will have no sources - and the only sources will be those authorized by a government with a vested interest in controlling what we get to know.
I may have felt as you do at one time, but after a belly-full of Bush and now Obama, I am for unbridled freedom of the press.
If they don't want information leaked, they'll have to do a better job of holding on to it. Once it is in the hands of a reporter, it should be available to the American public. Parent
While I have no problem requiring a very high bar for the government to meet before compelling reporters to reveal confidential sources, as the Valerie Plame case shows, nothing should ever be absolute, because the motives of both leakers and media personnel aren't always altruistic. Parent
Similar disastrous response from the audience. JH supposedly gave the middle finger salute to the Forest Hills crowd of white prepubescents as he left the stage. Seems Jim Morrison was also appropriately rude to the folkies.
Manzarek I always pegged as the main driver of their music, both in the studio and on stage, with Morrison providing the poetical lyrics and the surly, menacing image, and the other 2 pulling their weight creatively.
Great original group with a good deal of outstanding music which has stood the test of time. Parent
The president stressed personal responsibility and the criticality of avoiding excuses. The personal advice included setting an example--admonishing the graduates "to be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner. Be the best father you can be to your children." This is an occasion, in my view, where presidential words are so important.
There is no one in the final four who I think should not be there. Not a Bristol Palin in the group. All four are excellent dancers. From what I have seen so far, and I have not seen the freestyle dances yet, my vote goes to Zendaya.
I had never heard of Zendaya until DWTS. She has incredible poise for a 16 year old. And skills? My oh my can that girl dance. Parent
CBS is reporting massive destruction and the expectation of lost lives.
Are you in that vicinity, caseyOR? Parent
An elementary school was leveled during school hours. Parent
via Twitter Parent
WASHINGTON -- White House officials were first notified on April 16 about an investigation into Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of conservative groups and discussed its potential findings with the Treasury Department but never told President Obama, the White House said Monday. The I.R.S. inspector general informed the White House counsel's office about the agency's nearly finished audit along with other reviews nearly a month before its release, the White House said. Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, was personally told on April 24, and she notified the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and other senior aides without informing the president, the White House said. "She made the decision or the judgment that it was not necessary or appropriate to inform the president of this, and that didn't happen," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. "And most importantly, no action was taken by anyone in this building to intervene."
The I.R.S. inspector general informed the White House counsel's office about the agency's nearly finished audit along with other reviews nearly a month before its release, the White House said. Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, was personally told on April 24, and she notified the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and other senior aides without informing the president, the White House said.
"She made the decision or the judgment that it was not necessary or appropriate to inform the president of this, and that didn't happen," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. "And most importantly, no action was taken by anyone in this building to intervene."
This is dizzying. We are offered quotes from something known as the "White House" - as in "the White House said"... I suppose they mean Carney... The "White House" is certainly not President Obama.
In fact, White House officials and White House counsel apparently make decisions about what information it should share with the Chief Executive.
Maybe this is as it always has been, but I find it beyond parody.
In terms of shielding the boss, who knows whether that is a good idea or a bad idea. He could have done nothing about it during the investigation, else he be meddling.... Parent
It was a Chicago move from a Chicago politician... Parent
And that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was behind 9/11.
Good grief, have you guys forgotten 1998? Parent
Heh. Parent
The Times article just stuck me funny on two counts... The first being the use of the phrase, "The White House said"... and not meaning the primo occupant thereof...
The second was the casual reference to the fact that members of the White House apparently routinely take it upon themselves to decide whether or not to inform the President about an issue.
I don't know that I want those folks making those decisions - if in fact they are. I wonder whether President Obama wants those people making those decisions, if in fact they are. Parent
I have a feeling, for example, that Clinton might have wanted to be informed of everything.
I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about that - but that is my impression. Parent
I was referring to the phrase, "The White House said"... without a specific reference to whom the actual speaker was. They didn't write the White House Press Secretary, or the President... Just "The White House". A house don't talk - last I heard.
The other thing that caught my eye was the way in which it seems to be accepted practice for staffers to decide what they want the President to be informed about. I find this to be either comic, or potentially tragic. Parent
But your point on "the white house said" makes perfect sense and you're right it was pretty lousy writing. Parent