Skip to main content

View Diary: Anonymous Government Officials Leak Defense of DOJ's Spying on Reporter (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Linked article is pretty vague (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, sebastianguy99, MartyM, sponson

      What exactly is the lie supposed to be?

      •  this seems pretty specific, doesn't it? (16+ / 0-)
        “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 the following 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.
         

        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

        by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:36:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not specific at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto

          Approving a warrant does not mean a possible prosecution. Furthermore, other reports have indicated that the search warrant identified Rosen as an unindicted co-conspirator. I don't know if that part was left off, or was untrue. If true, then there's no evidence whatsoever that even a possible prosecution has been considered. All that exists is the accusation of a lie, with no actual description of what that lie might be.

          •  Yes, it is somewhat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            I'm sorry--it seems that you're splitting hairs and I'm not.

            You are right to say "approving a warrant does not mean a possible prosecution", though it strongly hints at the possibility. The rest is your opinion, with the exception of your last sentence, which makes no sense. It's absolutely clear regarding what is being sought in the testimony:

            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.
            -the only thing it does not do is actually quote the alleged lie, and frankly, this article is not court testimony, so it doesn't need to.
             

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:32:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  what it is SUPPOSED to be is another radack (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MartyM

        attempt to smear the department of justice.

        she has an obvious agenda that was summed up by justice henry h. kennedy, jr. when he dismissed her lawsuit against the doj, so she is continuing to "try" the d.o.j. on any forum she can find - including this site.

        Radack has not alleged anywhere in the record that DOJ is likely to injure her in the future—or even suggested that this is a possibility. Rather, the request for an injunction appears to have a punitive animus or be based on a generalized desire for vindication. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 20 (“a declaration and injunction would redress Ms. Radack’s injury by labeling the
        Department’s action as what it really was—retaliation.”).

        [p.8]

        further illustrated in the dismissal of radack's lawsuit is her propensity to jump to the wrong conclusions regarding the actions of the d.o.j.
        From these documents, Radack asks the court to conclude that OPR can refer cases to state bar associations only when the listed criteria—the completion of an investigation, a conclusive finding of professional misconduct, and an affirmation thereof by the Department—are met. She insists that because none of these criteria was met in her case, OPR “violated its own policy,” id. ¶ 58, thereby acting in a manner that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.” This argument is unpersuasive.
        Indeed, the letter to Congress upon which Radack relies states explicitly that “OPR will continue its policy of referring to the bar allegations against attorneys who have left the
        Department where the allegations fall more appropriately within the bar’s investigatory jurisdiction or the attorney refuses to cooperate with OPR.” Id. at 3.

        This stated referral policyappears to encompass Radack’s case exactly—OPR is referring to the bar authority allegations against a former DOJ attorney because further investigation seems to fall more appropriately under the bars’ purview than the Department’s.

        And, even if this allegation-referral policy does not cover OPR’s actions in this case, Radack has not presented any evidence that would allow the court to conclude that the Department has adopted a policy that prohibits it from acting as it did.  
        pp 12,13

        (paragraph formatting added for easier reading)

        it appears that radack continues to misinterpret the policy and actions of the d.o.j.   this diary reads as such a smear that i would have expected it in the national inquirer, not here.  we are supposed to be reality based.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:49:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm. Seems to me YOU have an agenda here. (11+ / 0-)

          Smear Attack the OP.  Bummer.

          Oh, and that agenda supports your #1 agenda:

          Defend this particular POTUS/Admin regardless of their actions.

          Way too transparent, dear.  Poor show.

          The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

          by JVolvo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:06:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not a smear when it is the truth, my friend. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MartyM

            and radack is the only one pushing smears around here.

            also, where in my posts do you see any mention of the POTUS/admin?

            you need to possible re-read my posts with a better pair of glasses.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:27:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Funny, I'm not wearing the rose-tinted frames so (11+ / 0-)

              I see DoJ overreach illegality (that we would ALL object to if it were BushCo DoJ) and more Admin heavy-handedness when it comes to "security."

              If only we had an administration that would vow to be transparent...

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:51:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  wish i knew the code for awesome eyeroll thing.. (0+ / 0-)

                so,  instead...

                :::eyeroll:::

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:55:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read page 24 and 25 of this link (4+ / 0-)

                  http://s3.documentcloud.org/...

                  If Kim is telling the truth and Rosen seemed to be goading him to answer questions that alluded to a classified document that Kim never gave him, then why go after all journalists?  

                  Instead of getting angry at anyone who questions what the DOJ did, why not learn about this case.  Clearly, DOJ didn't handle it well.  They should not have spied on AP journalists phone lines by sneaking around with the phone companies the way they did behind AP's back.  That's a real slap in the face of freedom of the press if ever there was one.

                  Kim said he spoke to Rosen hoping to get a job at a think tank.  The DOJ should investigate this aspect of the alleged leak, not journalists.  Rosen allegedly gave Kim the idea he would help him get a job, which is bribery.  Go after bribery charges, not soliciting info, which is not a crime.

                  If Kim is telling the truth, Rosen learned about the contents of the classified document elsewhere, but possibly used Kim's pointed questioning to implicate Kim and cover up the real source.  This DOJ investigation looks like it could be a witch hunt and a cover up of the real source of the classified document by using Kim as the fall guy.

                  Seriously, the DOJ needs to be investigated for spying on journalists and possibly covering up the investigation of the real leaker by using Rosen's interviews to blame Kim.

                  The DOJ bungled this investigation.  Don't shoot the messenger.

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:24:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  A smear? (9+ / 0-)

          That's funny, I don't read the diary that way at all. Your comment, OTOH, sure looks like a case of kill the messenger, done very badly.  

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:05:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Edrie, really??? (0+ / 0-)

          Jesselyn's opening paragraph says it all, doesn't it?

          after the Justice Department declared Rosen a criminal aider and abettor and co-conspirator
          Why aren't they going after McCain?  He personally went to Syria and met with terrorists, did he not?

          Is he not "aiding and abetting" AND now a "co-conspirator" with known terrorists?

          Who's zooming whom here?

          She has been defending the 1st Amendment and whistleblowers for a very long time.  How is it a "smear campaign" again?

          If our government didn't have arbitrary rules and arbitrary secret interpretations and secret court hearings, then we wouldn't be here discussing it now would we?

          If our government didn't act in a criminal and unconstitutional manner, Jesselyn would have nothing to write about, right?

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:50:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Holder is a liar and is not be trusted (26+ / 0-)

      From reading the article at the link I don't see a smoking gun. IMO the more damning testimony was Holder explaining why some banks are too big to prosecute:

      From March 3, 2013 Huffpost:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      When the Attorney General of the United States admits some banks are simply too big to prosecute, it might be time to admit we have a problem -- and that goes for both the financial and justice systems.

      Eric Holder made this rather startling confession in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, The Hill reports. It could be a key moment in the debate over whether to do something about the size and complexity of our biggest banks, which have only gotten bigger and more systemically important since the financial crisis.

      "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to The Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

      Holder's comments don't come as a total surprise. His underlings had already made similar confessions to The New York Times last year, after they declined to prosecute HSBC for flagrant, years-long violations of money-laundering laws, out of fear that doing so would hurt the global economy. Lanny Breuer, formerly in charge of doling out the Justice Department's wrist slaps to banks, told Frontline as much in the documentary "The Untouchables," which aired in January.

      Elizabeth Warren's recent questioning has confirmed that there have been no studies, no reports, no documentation that supports Holder's assertion in bold above. None. Zilch. Years of the Justice Department refusing to follow the law and fabricating a false excuse for the failure to do so. That should be a BFD!

      Why isn't the House Judiciary Committee looking into this slam dunk false testimony? Could it be because they are paid not to?

      Holder needs to go.

    •  CNN Botches Key Facts In Holder Story (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MartyM, Pluto
      CNN Botches Key Facts In Holder Story

      ERIC BOEHLERT

      Reporting that House Republicans are investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress during his recent testimony about Justice Department seizures of communications records in connection with a national security leak investigation, CNN's Dana Bash misstated key facts of the controversy. In so doing, CNN helped bolster the hollow claims of Republicans -- wildly hyped by Fox News -- that Holder may have perjured himself

      <...>

      Then later in the piece, CNN misstated the contents of the FBI warrant request:

      An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen's e-mails said there was probable cause the reporter had broken the law when he allegedly received a leaked classified report from a State Department contractor.

      The CNN report additionally claimed Rosen was labeled a "co-conspirator" to "the crime of disclosing government secrets." Both claims are inaccurate.

      According to the FBI warrant request, Fox's Rosen was labeled a "co-conspirator" not because he "received" leaked information or disclosed it, but because, according to the FBI, he solicited the information.

      From NBCNews.com:

      In a 2010 affidavit in support of the search warrant, an FBI agent named Rosen as a possible "co-conspirator" in the case because he "asked, solicited and encouraged" Kim to give him information.

      <...>

      http://mediamatters.org/...

      The Rosen Case: Questions About the Kim Warrant
      http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
      •  Well they're (0+ / 0-)

        actually wrong.

        The affidavit cites a specific statute that states that the information in questions is specifically prohibited (and illegal) to be leaked, and that receiving the information and then disseminating it is also prohibited (and illegal).

        The evidence listed was about asking for, but also receiving, the information, i.e. (totally paraphrasing), "exchanged phone call/e-mail three hours prior to going to print with information"

        That isn't about asking for the information.  That is establishing a nexus between Kim and Rosen regarding where the information came from, information which was then disseminated, hence - possible crime.

         

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:03:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site