Bush Administration Subpoenas Michael Moore

From Think Progress:

Last night on NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Moore announced that "the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me, going after me for helping these 9/11 rescue workers..."

You can find the video there also.

As Moore points out, journalists are allowed to travel to Cuba.  So the Bush administration seems only to be doing some political payback.  They really have no shame.

Transcript:

   LENO: I was asking you about them in the dressing room. And this is like one of these dramatic moments. We were backstage, and I said, "Hey, what happened with them? I know you took them to Cuba, and I know a couple of months ago the government went after you for going to Cuba" –

   MOORE: Took them to Guantanamo Bay.

   LENO: Yeah. And everybody to get their health care.

   MOORE: Because I heard the al Qaeda terrorists that we have in the camps there detained are receiving free dental, medical, eye care, the whole deal, and our own 9/11 rescue workers can’t get that in New York City. And I just thought there was something completely crazy about that, so we sailed into Guantanamo Bay and filmed it, to try to get them the same care we’re giving al Qaeda. The Bush administration became upset at that, and it informed me at the same — when I was on the show last — that they were investigating me for doing this.

   LENO: Well, investigating you for going to Cuba.

   MOORE: Yeah, because Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, and once we’re there in Cuba, we couldn’t get any help, so we went and got help from the Cuban doctors.

   LENO: But a lot of celebrities go to Cuba.

   MOORE: Yeah, oh yeah. Leonardo DiCaprio has been there, Cameron Diaz.

   LENO: Sure, a lot of people go. But what happened just an hour ago —

   MOORE: You want me to tell what happened –

   LENO: Sure, go ahead.

   MOORE: Ok, well, I haven’t even told my own family this yet, so you’re asking me to do this on national television.

   LENO: Yeah, but it’s NBC, so not that many people are watching.

   MOORE: Alright. Well, I was just informed while I was back there with Jay that the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me, going after me for helping these 9/11 rescue workers.

   LENO: Well, no, for going to Cuba, it wasn’t for helping them –

   MOORE: Well, that’s why I went there. I didn’t go there like Cameron Diaz to get a tan. No offense, I’m all for her tan. I’m just sailing around on a pontoon there in Cuba, but that’s not why I was there. I was there to help them and now I’m going to face this further harrassment from the Bush people. Aren’t they busy with something else?

   LENO: What does the subpoena involve? Is it because you went to Cuba, is that why?

   MOORE: Yeah, because as free citizens in a free country we’re not allowed to travel to Cuba, but journalists can go, and this was a work of journalism. But frankly, the larger point’s being missed here. The point is that first of all, can we all agree that we should take care of 9/11 rescue workers? You know? And you know, actually, Harvey Weinstein who owns the company that’s distributing the film — the Weinstein Company — they have said that on Aug. 11 this year, they’re going to donate 11 percent of the box office of SiCKO to help these workers and the other workers who need some help.

   LENO: That’s good.

•  tips, flames, comments

  Amazing how the Bush Administration can just ignore Congressional subpoenas, yet issue them themselves for bogus reasons.

  by dave1042 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:04:58 AM PDT

  •  the base will approve

    but the rest of us will see it for what it is.

    by howardx on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:06:28 AM PDT

•  One Question: If the White House Doesn't

  respond to subpoenas...

  Why should anyone respond to theirs??

  by TheManWithNoPoint on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

  •  For a Man with No Point

    You make good ones.

    by Kascade Kat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:08:03 AM PDT

  •  BRAVO!!! n/t

    by califdem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:15:15 AM PDT

  •  Perfect...

    Let Michael testify. The man has dotted his "i"'s and crossed his "t"'s. Make it a televised inquiry. He thinks on his feet. He's sharp under pressure.

    You saw what he did to Blitzer at the close of the second half of his appearance, right?

    At the close:
    [paraphrasing--not finding the transcripts] "One more thing Wolf: I wanted to thank you for telling me during the break that you saw SiCKO and really liked it. That means a lot to me."

    Wolf didn't know how to respond. He was on his heels.

    So as long as it is televised in it's entirety, go ahead, let him testify! He'll do more damage to them than they can do in turn... unless of course they decide to Tillman another patriot.

    by j bopp on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:16:45 AM PDT

    •  Really? Has he dotted his is and crossed his ts?

      Where is his OFAC license?

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps I spoke to hastily,

        ...I should have said something to the extent that "With several decades of experience, the man knows who and what he's up against. I find it hard to believe that he didn't seek some solid legal consultation in advance."

        Reading the bits on the OFAC license, yeah, they may have a case. But this is as much--if not more-so--about the court of public opinion. That's a match I think Moore will likely win this time 'round. Especially since from the get-go, he's consistantly referred to Gitmo detainees as Terrorists--not POW's, not detainess, not alleged terrorists, etc. He's in a pretty solid position to take the GOP's biggest symbols of their war on Terrah--the Beyond a Doubt Terrahists in gitmo and the Sacred 9/11 Rescue Workers--and turn them fully against this administration. They pursue this publicly, as long as MM keeps it tight, and the administration will only further divorce themselves from Bush's "Bullhorn Moment."

        <./shooting from the hip>

        by j bopp on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

        •  And Leno did him a favor

          in coaxing it out of him.  Leno has a large gop audience, and judging from the last night's live crowd, they are feeling quite supportive of MM.  
          Fahrenheit 9/11 was one thing, but Bushco is pushing their luck this time.

          by enough already on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:21:18 AM PDT

      •  There is a "general license" for journalists

        At least as I understand it.  I'm sure they'll say that he's not a journalist, but I expect he won't mind fighting them on that.  And I wouldn't be surprised if he got himself credentialed by some publication, essentially as an insurance policy.

        Besides which, the prohibition as I understand it isn't on travel to Cuba as such, but on financial transactions while there.  It wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if all of his expenses were picked up by the Cuban government, which would presumably mean that there was no violation even if he wasn't covered by a general license.

        One of the benefits of this is that people may begin asking why American citizens, alone among all people in the world, are effectively prohibited by their own government from going to Cuba and seeing for themselves what's going on there.  Why is it that Mexicans, Canadians, British, Irish, Germans, Japanese and everyone else in the world can freely travel there, but our government tries to criminalize it?  Is Cuba really so much worse than all of the other evil governments in the world where American citizens can freely travel?

        by leevank on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:17:12 AM PDT

        •  The general license needs to be held by

          the news organization.  Furthermore in order to qualify one needs to be "regularly employed in that capacity by a news reporting organization and traveling for journalistic activities."

          by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:39:09 AM PDT

          •  What is your authority for the proposition ...

            that a specific "general license" (which is a contradiction in terms, by the way) needs to be held by the news organization?

            This document, issued by a law firm experienced in these matters, strongly suggests to me that a "general license" is issued by issuance of the regulation itself, and does NOT require any specific application.  Note, in particular, the following:

            8. Since it is a "General License, " U.S. persons do not have to seek OFAC’s approval to engage in the specified activities, and do not have to notify OFAC that they plan to, or have engaged, in those activities. Rather, U.S. persons can simply proceed on their own reasonable interpretation of what the General License authorizes.

            I'm not referring to this to suggest that Moore is covered by this regulation, but in support of my position that a "general license," by definition, doesn't require any specific application if one satsifies the statutory conditions.

            by leevank on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:51:36 AM PDT

            •  Below I already conceded that I

              misinterpreted that part.  However, I do not see how Moore would be covered by this regulation as he is not in the REGULAR employ of any news organization.

              by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:57:30 AM PDT

              •  Neither are some of the most influential

                and respected Journalists in the world, they're freelance. Regular employ of a particular news organization is not a prerequisite qualification of legitimate journalism.

                by MichiganGirl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:33:36 AM PDT

                •  But it is a prerequisite to travel to Cuba

                  under a general license.

                  by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:36:09 AM PDT

            •  There...

              are three types of licenses.

              1.  The Statutory "general license."  This allows certain limited activities (particularly those involved with publishing, and certain agricultural issues, and there are some IP-related provisions).  No prior consent or issuance by OFAC is necessary.

              2.  A "general license" granted by OFAC for travel/spending in Cuba in connection with a particular cause.  This requires licensing from OFAC, but is broad in its nature (e.g., "may travel to, pay for meals, lodging, incidentals, etc."), and is typically issued for a specific purpose (journalistic activity and educational purposes are most common).

              3.  A "specific license" granted by OFAC for a particular transaction/activity in Cuba.  (E.g., "I wish to import 40 tons of sugar from Cuba," "I want to sell construction equipment to Cuba.").

              In the absence of one of these licenses, travel to, delivery of funds by, receipt of funds from, receipt of goods from Cuba is generally against the embargo.

              Again, whether the law is stupid or not is a fair question, but the law's clear that some sort of license (statutory or issued by OFAC) is required, and Moore's application to OFAC for a license can certainly be used as an argument that he didn't believe a statutory general license covered his proposed transaction.

              by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:05:52 AM PDT

              •  In the letter...

                That the OFAC sent Moore, it states that he was not granted a "specific license"

                I found this passage from the letter Moore recieved in an article on the First Amendment Center website.

                The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control notified Moore in a letter dated May 2 that it was conducting a civil investigation for possible violations of the U.S. trade embargo restricting travel to Cuba. A copy of the letter was obtained May 8 by the AP.

                "This office has no record that a specific license was issued authorizing you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba," wrote Dale Thompson, OFAC chief of general investigations and field operations, in the letter to Moore.

                But it looks as if a "specific" license was not needed. With my limited knowledge of this kind of thing, it seems he could have gone under a general license.

                Maybe the government is trying to contend that he should have had a specific license. That doesn't really hold, unless they are trying to claim that Moore's film is not journalism, but a commercial product. In truth, it is both. But a work of journalism is a work of journalism. Thus, Sicko should be covered under the general license provision.

                by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:08:12 PM PDT

        •  He wouldn't need credentials

          He is his own media outlet.

          by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:39:30 PM PDT

          •  Yeah, that is not what the regulations

            say.

            by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:00:35 PM PDT

            •  If he falls under the

              general license clause, which was detailed elsewhere on this thread, he would not need a license. Unless the law really requires all media outlets to be recognized and approved by the government as legitimate, which seems like a violation of the First Amendment to me. But I guess our current government considers the Bill of Rights to be "quaint".

              by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:30:28 PM PDT

              •  The law requires him to be

                REGULARLY employed by a news gathering entity.  He is not.

                by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:34:36 PM PDT

                •  He IS a news gathering entity n/t

                  by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:50:35 PM PDT

      •  None needed

        You don't need a license to exercise your First Amendment rights. Nor do you need one to make a documentary.

        by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:40:40 PM PDT

        •  You do need a license however

          to conduct any of these activities in Cuba.

          by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:00:09 PM PDT

    •  Also, there are no camreas in federal

      courtrooms.

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:33:03 AM PDT

      •  blech...

        Too bad. A sketch artist just won't do in this situation.

        **sigh**

        by j bopp on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:43:32 AM PDT

  •  Umm.. executive privilege

    You know that's their answer.  No matter if Dick Cheney is no longer a member of the executive branch.

    by pontechango on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:17:28 AM PDT

  •  Well, remember the DOJ works for them...

    so if they can tell DOJ prosecuters not to go after Miers and Bolton, they can tell them to prosecute MM. It fits right in with their politicalization of the DOJ.

    by BlueMindState on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:17:34 AM PDT

    •  Begging For Impeachment??? n/t

      by TheManWithNoPoint on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:20:03 AM PDT

      •  Time for Impeachment: NOT

        The time for an Impeachment was when we had civil discussion and gentlemen's agreements for pursuing truths in a lawful fashion. Impeachment is for people who actually govern.

        The time has come, instead, for arrests.

        I fully expect this president to flee the country in November at which point the rest of the world stands up with the American People.

        Because I am an astrologer, I say watch for the end of this administration before year-end. And watch for a few manoevers in mid-November that should forever wipe out the meaning of impeachment and take things out of a political and civil perspective, and put the focus on a criminal arrest.

        Serving peach pie with mint ice cream: for the first time, that sounds really good.

        cf

        by CF Perez on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

•  It's blatant retribution but IMO they won't get

  Moore. Case is weaker than a plate of warm pi**.

  by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:07:52 AM PDT

  •  In Bushite scum courts

    Moore might be in for a world of pain.

    by corvo on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:11:39 AM PDT

    •  Maybe a bit of pain, but think of the

      publicity MM will get for the cause. It just might be worth it to some degree.

      by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:14:03 AM PDT

      •  There's indeed a silver lining to this,

        and Moore's a pretty tough guy.

        by corvo on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:53:15 AM PDT

      •  This is what Michael Moore lives for

        The publicity is great for his cause and paints the Administration in its true colors at the same time.

        Smart move, Bushies!

        by A Mad Mad World on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:00:04 AM PDT

    •  Juries

      They'll harass Moore and indict him, but I can't believe any jury would convict him. And in any case by the time this gets to trial Bush will be out of office and the new president, a Democrat, will have the charges dropped.

      by Korkenzieher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:19:54 AM PDT

      •  Or, in fact pardon him? n/t

        by drbloodaxe on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:07:27 AM PDT

  •  How is the case weak?

    He travelled to Cuba without a license from OFAC.  The evidence that he did so is right there in his movie.  It really doesn't get easier than that.

    by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:15:26 AM PDT

    •  2 reasons: 1. he is a journalist and 2. precedent

      ...others have done exactly the same thing and not been prosecuted.

      by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:17:59 AM PDT

      •  Umm... Even if he was a journalist

        (which under the regs he is not) that does not exempt him from an obligation to obtain a license BEFORE travel.

        Second, that other people have not been prosecuted is not a defense.  Try and tell a cop next time you are pulled over "but other people were going the same speed."

        by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:21:05 AM PDT

        •  Of course it's a defense.

          Capricious enforcement.

          by Jeff Boatright on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:40:22 AM PDT

          •  Like I said... try it next time

            you get pulled over for speeding.  See how far it gets you.

            A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution

            United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996)

            Essentially, unless Moore can show that he has been targetted because of his race, he has no selective prosecution defense.

            by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:45:23 AM PDT

            •  I imagine

              a good lawyer can find 'reasons forbidden by the Constitution' that don't involve race.

              Personally, I think it's a weak defense, and I think he and his staff were extremely negligent in not obtaining whatever permit is needed for journalists in advance though.

              On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, we're 'free citizens of a free country', so why are we still letting them muzzle us by denying us travel anywhere?  If they want to strongly recommend that Americans not travel to Cuba, fine.
              But I think the government saying no, it's illegal to go to (Cuba/anywhere else in the world) is high handed and a 'quaint' relic of the cold war, just like many of Bush's advisors.

              by drbloodaxe on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:55:54 AM PDT

            •  Forbidding citizens to travel to Cuba is

              forbidden by the Constitution.  Moore could wipe those laws right off the books with that defense.  We're free to go whereever the hell we want.  The Constitution expressly forbids the Government to forbid us to go wherever the hell we want.

              by Pen on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:32:44 AM PDT

              •  Really?

                Because the Supreme Court has ruled the exact opposite.  See, e.g. ZEMEL v. RUSK, 381 U.S. 1 (1965).

                Which part of the Constitution EXPRESSLY forbids the government from issuing travel restrictions?

                by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:00:15 AM PDT

          •  You'd...

            have to show an equal protection violation, which is nigh unto impossible to do (see, e.g., McKleskey v. Kemp).

            by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:45:24 AM PDT

            •  See also Wayte v. U. S., 470 U.S. 598 (1982) nt

              by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:51:53 AM PDT

  •  Actually...

    they probably have a really good case.  The implementing regulations and statutes for the Cuban embargo are very clear in terms of forbidding United States citizens to travel to, spend money in, or do pretty much anything connected with Cuba without prior authorization/license from OFAC (a Treasury sub-agency).  (There are exceptions, but they are narrow and circumscribed.)

    Moore applied for a license, and when the office didn't act on the application, went ahead anyway.  He didn't pursue legal remedies to attempt to get them to issue the license.  (Though those probably would be unsuccessful.)  That can be used to show knowing violation, etc.

    Of course, whether he broke the law (which is pretty much beyond question here) is a separate question about whether the law is a good/wise law, but yes, even if a law is not good or wise, one can be subjected to penalties for not following it.

    by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:16:11 AM PDT

    •  What are the penalties?

      Anybody know?

      by Night Owl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:29:27 AM PDT

      •  Can be quite severe

        Up to $10,000 in civil penalties and up to $250,000 and 10 years in prison in criminal penalties.

        by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:31:31 AM PDT

        •  Know if anybody ever actually been imprisoned?

          Looking but can't find a precedent for that.

          by Night Owl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:07:13 AM PDT

      •  Actually...

        I do a fair amount of work in this area.  Per OFAC, violation penalties are (on the criminal side) up to 10 years in prison, $1 million fine for corporate entities, $250,000 fine for individuals, and civil penalties of up to $55,000 per violation.  (There is also confiscation rights of products--e.g., the government can seize Cuban cigars.)

        To the extent they seek civil penalties rather than criminal, the USDOJ could seek summary judgment, and would have a decent shot of getting it.

        by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:33:16 AM PDT

        •  I see they upped the civ penalties

          to 55k from 10K.  Huh.

          by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:40:37 AM PDT

        •  Found the civil enforcement actions page

          here.
          Some highlights:

          Selling computer systems:

          LogicaCMG Inc. Settles Cuban Assets Control Allegations: LogicaCMG Inc. Lexington, MA (LogicaCMG), has remitted $220,000.00 to settle allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations by a predecessor corporation, CMG elecommunications, Inc. (CMG), occurring during 2001. OFAC alleged that CMG procured, assembled, and exported a computer system, as well as provided technical support for the system after export, with knowledge that the goods and services were ultimately destined for Cuba and that such exports to Cuba were prohibited. CMG did not have an OFAC license to engage in these transactions, and CMG did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC. LogicaCMG, Inc. did not perform the acts itself; it is a successor company to CMG as a result of merger and related transactions effective in January 2003.

          Leasing oil drilling equipment:

          PSL Energy Services Settles Cuban Assets Control Regulations Allegations: PSL Energy Services ("PSL") has remitted $164,006.50 to settle allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations occurring during the period of April ­ September 2004. PSL voluntarily disclosed to OFAC that it may have violated the Cuban Assets Control Regulations by engaging in the unlicensed exportation and re-exportation of oilfield servicing equipment and related skilled services to Cuba.

          and of course, a cigars action:

          One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $6,088.85 for allegedly dealing in property in which Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest: OFAC alleged that between September 2003 and August 2006, the individual purchased Cuban-origin cigars offered for sale on the Internet. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC. The individual provided information to OFAC concerning additional purchases of Cuban-origin cigars.

          Would seem to me that selling computers and leasing oil rigs over an extended period of time is far more egregious than a one time trip to get health care.

          I'd also note that most of these     penalties have come where the perpetrator has failed to voluntarily disclose.  Doesn't seem like Moore isn't going to say he went.

          In any event, its not as if Moore won't be able to afford the fine whatever it is.  Heck he might even write it off as a marketing expense.

          by Night Owl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:57:55 AM PDT

        •  Since you seem to be in the know

          here, and I'm a lazy soul...

          Why do we have this embargo in the first place, and what purpose does it still serve, if any?  Is it a neocon relic from the Cold War to 'punish' Cuba for having socialism / communism?

          I could probably google this, but I'd rather hear it from a source that seems well informed rather than random yahoos.

          by drbloodaxe on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:00:26 AM PDT

          •  Basically...

            we do not recognize the Cuban government, and believe that the Cuban government controls substantially all economic activity in Cuba, and do not wish to benefit the Cuban government.  While I'm a firm believer that economic sanctions can and have had substantial effects on policy, the Cuban sanctions seem to not be effective, given their longevity and the lack of support from non-US states.  It's both a stick (because we don't support/recognize you, we punish you in this way) and a carrot (if you make changes, the embargo will be lossened).

            by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:45:11 AM PDT

            •  It's a failed policy

              That only strengthens the regime's control over its people and its economy.

              Bottom line: 45 years after implementation and Castro is still there, with his brother is set to take over when he finally expires.

              And sure you can blame other countries for not going along, but isn't that even more reason to scrap it?

              by Night Owl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:54:48 AM PDT

    •  Maybe

      But then they will have to prosecute everyone who has been to Cuba as a journalist. That would include anyone in the mainstream media. They would also need to be able to prove why the First Amendment does not apply to Moore.

      by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:43:30 PM PDT

      •  No they won't

        To begin with, journalists in a regular employ of a news gathering organization are exempt from the regs, and second, there is absolutely no requirement that if you prosecute one personyou must prosecute them all.

        by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:03:56 PM PDT

        •  So...

          First Amendment only applies to government recognized media outlets?

          by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:26:17 PM PDT

          •  No, but again, the First Amendment

            does not protect anyone's right ti travel to Cuba.

            by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:35:22 PM PDT

            •  If the argument is...

              that he has to be a government recognized media outlet in order to go to Cuba as a journalist, doesn't it amount to the same thing?

              He could have gone as a tourist, but not as a journalist because he has no right to call himself a journalist unless the government approves. Isn't that fundamentally against the 1st?

              by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:49:49 PM PDT

              •  No, it is not

                The government has a right to regulate foreign travel.  They give a blanket license to journalists, but that does mean that they have to control who gets the benefit of that exemption.  If anyone could simply call themselves a journalist, then the entire regime of travel restrictions would be ineffective.  

                For instance, in NYC, there are specially reserved parking spaces for vehicles with NY Press plates.  In order to obtain these plates, one must show that he is in an employ of a recognized media outlet.  The recognition is however incidental to providing license plates.  The government does not license journalists or media as such, but simply is making sure that a limited benefit is availble only to those truly entitled to it.  Others can publish or broadcast, but are not entitled to the specialized plates.

                Same with Michael Moore.  He is free to exercise his First Amendment rights, and even travel to Cuba.  But unless he is in regular employ by a recognized news agency, he must obtain a separate license.  This in no way abridges his freedom to speak or disseminate his ideas.  

                Oh, and he could not have gone as a tourist.  Tourist travel to Cuba is not licenseable.

                by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:20:30 PM PDT

                •  Makes sense except...

                  If you were an independent journalist in NYC, you might not get a parking pass but you would still be able to cover any story you wanted. To parallel Moore's situation, for example, if you wanted to do a story about a particular clinic in a particular neighborhood in NYC, your access would not be limited by the government. In the case of Sicko, he couldn't closely examine the Cuban medical system by standing on the beach on Key West. He had to go there.

                  He did contact the governement about a license, and it looks like the issue is whether or not he needed a specific license or if he could go under the general license. I guess that's for a grand jury to decide now.

                  by nutmeg on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:41:13 AM PDT

•  I didn't think that they issued subpoenas

  I thought they just made you disappear.

  Besides, issuing a subpoena means you acknowledge and follow the rule of law.  That is quite a shift for this administration.  

  by Great Lakes Gal on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:12:15 AM PDT

•  Remember GWB's 'bullhorn moment' after 9/11?

  He said to the rescue workers, "I can hear you!" and his approval rating surged to 89%.

  Had he told the truth, which was "If you get sick working here, I won't get you treatment, but Michael Moore will,"  Michael Moore's approvals would be 89%.  No wonder Republicans are habitual liars.

  by Greasy Grant on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:12:25 AM PDT

•  Good!

  More publicity for Moore and his cause, with the added bonus of keeping Guantanamo in the news as well.

  by Night Owl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

•  Oh, yes, please!!!

  Let them do this.  They continue to expose themselves as the keystone kops of crime families.

  This will be a lovely romp.

  What. Idiots.

  by CJB on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:13:09 AM PDT

•  Journalists are in fact allowed to travel to Cuba

  PROVIDED that they obtain a license first.  

  The Regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed to engage in any travel-related transactions related to travel to, from, and within Cuba.  Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable.  . . . Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations will face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.

  Licenses are granted to the following categories of travelers and they are permitted to spend money for Cuban travel and to engage in other transactions directly incident to the purpose of their travel under a general license, without the need to obtain special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC):

  Journalists and supporting broadcasting or technical personnel (regularly employed in that capacity by a news reporting organization and traveling for journalistic activities)

  http://travel.state.gov/...

  by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

  •  Did Moore obtain a license? n/t

    by sbdenmon on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:15:42 AM PDT

    •  I do not believe so. Otherwise it would all

      be a non-issue.

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:16:14 AM PDT

    •  No...

      he applied for a license, and they did not act (though that's not unusual).  He could have (but did not) proceeded with a court challenge to the agency's failure to act, but such a challenge would have been very hard to successfully complete (administrative deference, and there's substantial precedent that OFAC decisions are, in essence, wholly unreviewable).

      by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:18:36 AM PDT

    •  Also, upon closer reading Moore

      wouldn't qualify under that category since he is not emplyed by a news organization.  He could have qualified for a "specific license" either as a free-lance journalist or as a "Person traveling to engage in activities directly related to the exportation, importation, or transmission of information or informational materials."

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:19:16 AM PDT

      •  Arguably...

        Moore's film company is a "news organization."  However, even if you accept that, he still needs to get a "specific license."  He applied for one, and rather than waiting to get one or challenging the failure to issue, he just went ahead.  That's a pretty damn clear violation.

        by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:23:43 AM PDT

        •  Exactly... Although if his co

          is a news org, I think he doesn't need a "specific" license, but can have a "general" one.  But he didn't get either.

          by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:28:07 AM PDT

          •  On purpose? I'd bet on it.

            Moore is a master of promoting his cause by promoting himself.  I'd bet he's banking on testifying in court (or wherever) and making a spectacle of it.

            For the record, I think this spectacle would be brave and possibly very productive.  Even if his words in court never see the light of day in the press, you can bet he'll be in front of the courthouse after each day's proceedings drumming up awareness of this issue.

            by I on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:56:26 AM PDT

            •  Any decent judge would limit his testimony

              to the facts of travel to Cuba.  Everything else is inadmissible as irrelevant under FRE 401.

              by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:20:21 AM PDT

              •  Right. Which is why he'll be out front

                of the courthouse at 5:30 pm every day talking about the issue, staging rallies, etc., doing whatever he does.  As you (or someone) said, there are no cameras in the courtroom -- so he'll wait until there are cameras to put on a show.

                by I on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:24:33 AM PDT

    •  this is silly

      People go to Cuba all the time. I've known dozens that have. Moore wouldn't have gone unless he knew the legal ramifications and possible punishment. Given the scrutiny his movies get, he's quite lawyered up.

      by bigbay on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:53:18 AM PDT

      •  And when they go they break the law

        That they do not get prosecuted is utterly irrelevant.  

        by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:34:36 AM PDT

        •  Irrelevant?

          You mean it's okay to target one person for political reasons and let everyone else slide?

          by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:46:12 PM PDT

          •  In short, yes. The prosecutorial

            discretion to bring or not bring cases is nearly absolute.  With Moore it's easy simply because there is evidence of his law-breaking on film.

            by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:05:11 PM PDT

            •  And Im Sure

              Im sure that many of these people that go to Cuba also have evidence on video. Who travels without a camcorder these days? It seems that people with video of themselves breaking the law by going to Cuba would be easily found and prosecuted.

              Moore may have cause to get this dismissed (assuming that they even have a case, which I doubt) because if a law is so often violated, and not prosecuted, the defendant can claim malicious or selective prosecution.

              Here in Memphis, it is illegal for a me, as a woman, to drive a car unless a man is running or walking in front of my car, waving a red flag to warn approaching drivers and pedestrians.

              This law is violated thousands of times every day. But if someone decided to pull me over for it, I think I'd have a case, despite the fact that it IS technically illegal.

              I know that some probably think the Cuban embargo is a little more important than a stupid archaic driving law, but if it really was it would be more vigorously prosecuted. They have so blatantly decided to target Moore for political reasons that I think it will ultimately explode in their faces.

              by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:25:03 PM PDT

              •  Michael Moore just made it very

                easy by actually publishing his video thus making evidence easy to obtain.  In any case, the government is not required to prosecute everyone.  Just like a cop can choose to ticket only one speeder and has no obligation to ticket them all.

                by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:36:55 PM PDT

                •  True...

                  But really, even if he were to be convicted, I think it will backfire on BushCo.

                  by nutmeg on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:45:21 PM PDT

  •  I think you've misread it

    Here is the operative language, as I see it (with the key language bolded):

    Licenses are granted to the following categories of travelers and they are permitted to spend money for Cuban travel and to engage in other transactions directly incident to the purpose of their travel under a general license, without the need to obtain special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC):

    Journalists and supporting broadcasting or technical personnel (regularly employed in that capacity by a news reporting organization and traveling for journalistic activities).

    If you'll go to the State Department document, you'll note that there are OTHER categories that require specific licenses, such as for family members, people on religious travel, humanitarian activities travel, etc.  Unless this State Department document totally misrepresents the regulations, this would mean that a specific license is NOT required for travel by journalists as defined above.

    by leevank on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:31:31 AM PDT

    •  Yes, one needs to have a general license

      which is held by the news organization.  It is not a blanket dispensation for anyone who declares himself to be a journalist to go to Cuba.  The employer holds the general license and the employees can travel on that general license.

      In any event Moore does not qualify as a journalist under the regs because he is not in the employ of any news organization.

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:36:39 AM PDT

      •  Here is a link to the OFAC information

        http://www.ustreas.gov/...

        I see nothing about applying for a general license by the news organization, and typically, a "general license" is something that constitutes a blanket authorization without the need for any kind of an application.  If you can show me something that specifies a procedure for specific news organizations to apply for a "general license," I'll concede that you're correct.  But otherwise, I don't think so.

        And as for Morre not being in the employ of any news organization, how do you know that?  I'm sure he'll claim that his documentary film company constitutes a "news organization," and it's by no means clear to me that it would be an open and shut case that it's not.  And whatever else you think about him, Moore isn't stupid.  It wouldn't surprise me if he got himself specially hired by what is unquestionably a news organization to make this trip and report on it.

        It frankly amazes me how many people on this site are willing to simply ASSUME that he's guilty of a criminal violation for this trip.

        by leevank on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:43:41 AM PDT

        •  Upon furtehr review, I think you are right

          re: general license.

          However, Moore still would not qualify for it because he is not in a REGULAR employ of a news organization.  Being hired for one particular even does not qualify -- there is a specific license for that (see free-lance journalists).

          by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:56:28 AM PDT

          •  Also...

            even to the extent that it might cover Moore himself and his film crew (a question of fact), it wouldn't cover the individuals who he took with him.  Obviously, those individuals have a sympathy factor, but aiding and abetting charges could certainly be brought against Moore.

            by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:08:27 AM PDT

          •  And...

            there are record-keeping/reporting requirements associated with that license (CACR 515.563).  The biggest problem Moore's likely to face is that he apparently applied for a specific "freelance" license, which can probably be used to demonstrate that he's "freelance," and thus not covered by 515.563(a).

            by profmatt on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:12:31 AM PDT

•  First of all, I notice both times Moore has been

  on Leno about this film, Leno has
  distinctly been extremely sympathetic to
  what Mike has been doing for healthcare.
  And man does the audience respond favorably.
  We need to get behind Mike on this one and
  not let the Bushies get away with this.

  by Wildthumb on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:18:28 AM PDT

•  Now we know another reason why

  Gonzo must stay at the helm of Justice - no other attorney general would go after Micheal Moore.

  by paige on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:19:52 AM PDT

  •  Hahah! I hadn't even thought of Gonzo

    A man with zero credibility persecuting Moore for seeking medical care for 9/11 victims.  I've gotta give major credit to Michael Moore.  He has suckered the Bush Administration into the most spectacular farce imaginable.

    by pontechango on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:26:37 AM PDT

•  Seems to me that the prey has fallen for the bait

  I'm gonna go cook some popcorn!

  by pontechango on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:19:53 AM PDT

•  ah geez

  political bullying tactics are so 2003.

  the only political capital these guys have is what thay've stolen through willful defiance of the constitution. as man with no point reminds above, their actions have shown the value they attach to a subpoena, so their issuance of one is beyond laughable.

  a desperate, hollow, petty gesture.  

  by homo neurotic on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:20:37 AM PDT

•  yes, and controversey sells tickets.

  Kudos to MM for exposing our lousy and unfair health care system, however, I wish he would present his information in less controversial ways. His message gets lost among all the other political details...

  by fiona2 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:20:38 AM PDT

  •  I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

    How many documentaries and reports have been produced about American health care?  A few hundred?  How many Americans have seen or read them?  A few thousand?

    But how many Americans will see SiCKO and, at the very least, wonder why it is that "terrorists" get better health care than NYC firefighters?  A few million?

    by I on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:00:23 AM PDT

    •  And that is my point exactly...

      Given the political hoopla regarding his trip to Cuba, how many Americans will miss the point that the resucue workers are not getting the standard of health care they deserve? By the way, for anyone interested, Traverse City Film Festival, sponsored by Michael Moore, is next week. One could catch the first half of the film festival and still make the Yearly KOS Convention, .

      by fiona2 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:43:23 AM PDT

      •  Any American that watches SiCko

        will know exactly what his point is regarding the level of care that the 9/11 workers receive in America.

        Anyone that watches SiCko and completely misses the point... It doesn't matter if those people "miss the point", because people like that don't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves, whether the get the point or not, anyway.

        by MichiganGirl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:48:28 AM PDT

•  going after Moore is about the dumbest idea

  the loyal bushies have come up with lol

  do they ever read reviews of his films

  sicko is his biggest hit to date and its a hiot across 'party lines' so any attempt to go after Moore would oh so totally backfire on the bushies that it isnt even funny (actually it is)

  I bet Michael has pushed for this subpeona because it only serves to reignite interest in his film and it would start a second wave of first time viewers going to the movies or maybe the trial will be timed to the release of the DVD, what a wonderful ad campaign THAT would make.

  by KnotIookin on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:38:15 AM PDT

•  8/11

  they will donate 11% of the receipts for that day or in total?

  if its that day i will make sure to tell everyone i know to see the move for a third time on that day.

  by indefinitelee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

•  Was this the "special announcement"

  That was promised yesterday morning?
  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  If so, how is it that it was something that happened 'just an hour ago' and "was just informed while I was back there with Jay that the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me"

  by Catte Nappe on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:48:05 AM PDT

  •  I was wondering anout that myself

    That's how I stumbled upon the Bush subpoena info. I was looking for what the announcement was.  So taking Michael Moore at his word (and I am), I think the subpoena thing threw off his message. Perhaps it was supposed to be this that was mentioned at the end of the transcript:

    And you know, actually, Harvey Weinstein who owns the company that’s distributing the film — the Weinstein Company — they have said that on Aug. 11 this year, they’re going to donate 11 percent of the box office of SiCKO to help these workers and the other workers who need some help

    by dave1042 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:53:39 AM PDT

    •  In case you don't read my reply to Catte Nappe's

      comment above, the surprise was about the SiCKO card that people can print out and use.

      by Terre on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:12:09 AM PDT

      •  my bad...

        Thanks for clarifying

        by dave1042 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:52:37 AM PDT

        •  No "my bad". Unless you watched the show

          you wouldn't have known.  :o)

          by Terre on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:10:50 AM PDT

  •  No

    The special announcement was about a SiCKO health care card that you can download from his site.  He's asking people to tell their insurance companies that they will "use the card" when they are denied coverage.  It's a bit strange but I think the idea is that when they are denied coverage, Moore will "cover" the story by publicizing it, after they let him know about the insurance problem.

    by joanneleon on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:01:36 AM PDT

  •  No, it was for his SiCKO card

    that you can obtain and print out at his website.  Leno asked what the suprise was and the card was Michael's reply.

    The announcement about the subpoena came at the end of the interview.  Michael hadn't even had a chance to tell his family first.

    by Terre on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:09:10 AM PDT

•  Melting... melting

  Now the Bush administration is going to draw attention to the fact that 9/11 volunteers couldn't get health care, and they are taking a position against Michael Moore, who was clearly helping them.

  Can they get any dumber?  Yet again, their blind vengeance and policies of retaliation are going to hurt them more than they hurt their target.  They're melting... melting...

  by joanneleon on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:58:25 AM PDT

•  A subpoena? Related to what case?

  Unlike Congress, who has broad powers to investigate just about anything, the executive branch can't just subpoena people to obtain information absent an ongoing case.  Something doesn't make sense here.

  by smartcookienyc on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:03:22 AM PDT

  •  Yeah - a subpoena to do what?

    It's just an order to appear before whatever nebulous panel they create.

    He can appear with his lawyer and the only stipulation