Uncategorized

Obama’s Justice Department Scandal Gets Worse

Attempts by U.S. President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to spy on a Fox News reporter were rejected by two judges before a third finally agreed to sign off on the snooping. News of this “judge-shopping” – explicitly authorized by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder – was originally exposed by Ryan Lizza…

Attempts by U.S. President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to spy on a Fox News reporter were rejected by two judges before a third finally agreed to sign off on the snooping. News of this “judge-shopping” – explicitly authorized by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder – was originally exposed by Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker.

“New documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify (Fox News reporter James) Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay,” Lizza reports.

Eventually Royce C. Lamberth, the chief U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C. overturned those verdicts, though – enabling Holder’s goons to snoop on Rosen’s personal emails and track his movements.

Of course Rosen wasn’t merely spied on by Obama’s Justice Department, he was classified as an “aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” in the leaking of classified information by a U.S. State Department official. In other words the Obama administration attempted to criminalize journalism …

Compounding Obama’s problem, news of this snooping scandal broke a week after it was revealed that the USDOJ conducted extensive snooping into the reporting activities of three Associated Press offices.

Scary stuff, people …

“The revelation that two courts denied the secret subpoena before Lamberth finally agreed will damage the narrative that there was nothing extraordinary or out-of-bounds about Holder’s attempt to delve into the private communications of Rosen and his employer,” Breitbart’s Larry O’Connor wrote.

We agree … Obama’s thugocracy simply kept pushing until it found a judge willing to do its bidding.

Shameful …

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Amerika’s “Third Crusade” In Iraq Is Having Trouble …

FITSNews
SC

Union Targets Boeing’s SC Facility

FITSNews
Uncategorized

Eric Holder Versus South Carolina

FITSNews

33 comments

lowcorider May 29, 2013 at 6:43 am

Fox News Corp was notified. Get caught up.

Reply
Smirks May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am

Link?

Reply
Lowcorider May 29, 2013 at 6:43 am

Fox News Corp was notified. Get caught up.

Reply
Smirks May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am

Link?

Reply
GrandTango May 29, 2013 at 8:05 am

Any man who shows as many character flaws as Obama, but is allowed to rule is a danger to the Republic and Democracy. Obama told his drones to vote for REVENGE. His pastor is a man drunk on hate…and Obama insulted the old woman who cared for him as A TYPICAL WHITE WOMAN. How disgusting of a person must he be?

What surprises me: is that FITS thinks this is news. I KNEW this all along…Obama is a conglomeration of the fear of the Government against the people that could be imagined…

And Obama’s Zombies (people who vote for him) see this as A-OK…It is the implementation of Corruption and immorality by the Elites who have stolen power, through cheating, to screw the decent and hardworking.
We’re in as much danger as this country has ever been in, and idiots like FITS, who should have been sounding the warning, are too stupid to recognize what is happening…

Reply
Just saying May 29, 2013 at 8:11 am

Holder should be sent packing for this. I mean this is like the 4th or 5th goof he has had.

Reply
Smirks May 29, 2013 at 8:31 am

Holder should have been let go when Obama used executive privilege, honestly.

The question no one is asking is, who will replace Holder, and will he/she be any better? A lot of Obama’s picks have been disappointing, really.

Reply
Fandango May 29, 2013 at 9:43 am

O’s picks are just like Haley’s picks. They are koolaid drinking puppets, unqualified, incompetent, immoral, unethical ZOMBIES to Haley’s wishes.

Reply
Darth May 29, 2013 at 9:23 am

sent packing? Perp walked out of DOJ to a DC holding cell with street folk…

Reply
Just saying May 29, 2013 at 8:11 am

Holder should be sent packing for this. I mean this is like the 4th or 5th goof he has had.

Reply
Smirks May 29, 2013 at 8:31 am

Holder should have been let go when Obama used executive privilege, honestly.

The question no one is asking is, who will replace Holder, and will he/she be any better? A lot of Obama’s picks have been disappointing, really.

Reply
Fandango May 29, 2013 at 9:43 am

O’s picks are just like Haley’s picks. They are koolaid drinking puppets, unqualified, incompetent, immoral, unethical ZOMBIES to Haley’s wishes.

Reply
Darth May 29, 2013 at 9:23 am

sent packing? Perp walked out of DOJ to a DC holding cell with street folk…

Reply
bogart May 29, 2013 at 8:58 am

Is Rupert Murdock,Fox News owner,still tied up in his wiretapping and hacking scandal?

Reply
bogart May 29, 2013 at 8:58 am

Is Rupert Murdock,Fox News owner,still tied up in his wiretapping and hacking scandal?

Reply
Thomas May 29, 2013 at 9:14 am

Prosecutors and Criminal Defense Attorneys judge shop all the time. The law is not always black and white, and to some degree on both sides of law enforcement, the law allows for maneuvering to get your case before a judge you believe more likely to interpret the law the way you do. if you think every other administration has not done that you’re nuts.

Second its a little hard to listen to complaints about snooping by the same people who sat by without complaint or actively applauded the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping of tens of thousands of americans and the illegal interception of the emails of possibly tens of millions of Americans. You may also recall Republicans pushed through retroactive immunity for the telephone companies who assisted the Bush administration in the largest illegal snooping case in US History. As I also recall there were significant calls for the head of the leaker in the Bush Administration who leaked the existence of the illegal wiretapping program as well as calls for the prosecution of the reporters who published the leak.

Also there is this from a July 11, 2012 report by the LA Times.

” Expressing outrage over national security leaks, Republicans on a House Judiciary subcommittee pressed legal experts Wednesday on whether it was possible to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information.

The response was a qualified yes.

“Under certain circumstances, you can see that if someone acting with impunity and knowledge of the consequences goes ahead and publishes it, that is something that I think would be worthy of prosecution and punishment,” said Kenneth Wainstein, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft who specializes in national security.”

So I am curious, is it you contention that it is and should be legal for a reporter to publish classified information even though it may lead to the death of American operatives?

Reply
major major May 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Ahh, the old “but, but…..BUSH” defense. If Bush had never existed, the left would have to invent him just to have a knee-jerk excuse for all the Obama administration’s shenanigans.

Reply
Thomas May 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Interesting reply. I guess it shows you did not read or comprehend my comments. Typical.

My reference to the crimes of the Bush Administration was to point out the hypocrisy and lack of credibility of those claiming to suddenly be surprised, appalled, and shocked by what the Dept. of Justice has done or is doing in regard to a national security leak.

My reference to the LA Times article was to show the Justice Dept. is simply doing what Republicans insisted they should be doing last year. Another case of hypocrisy and lack of credibility.

But the crux of my comments was to question whether they are doing anything wrong at all. If it is possible to prosecute reporters who leak classified information, their surveillance of these reporters is justified and the investigation of a crime.

So what is your position? Should it be legal for a reporter to make public classified information that may or will result in the death of US operatives abroad?

Reply
major major May 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm

So what is your position? Should it be legal for a reporter to make public classified information that may or will result in the death of US operatives abroad?

Since you asked, my position is that journalists hold no special privilege. If they have committed a crime let them be charged. But what the hell do I know? The more relevant question is what is the position of some of the relevant parties?

The position of the first two judges consulted by the DOJ was that the reporter needed to be notified.

The position of Eric Holder, after denying ever having any involvement in a decision to pursue a criminal investigation of a reporter, is that it would not be “wise policy” to do so.

The position of the New York Times Editorial Board was to characterize this as “Another Chilling Leak Investigation” that “shows a heavy tilt toward secrecey and insufficient concern about a free press.”

Perhaps the Holder DOJ has refused to bring charges against the reporter because of a desire to “have their cake and eat it too”. They want to wield their power of wiretapping and record-seizing as a threat against unauthorized reporting without going to trial and dirtying their reputation as First Amendment respecters.

Reply
Classist Historian May 29, 2013 at 7:49 pm

MANY first amendment cases need to be revisited by the Supremes. The most egregious attack against one’s reputation is found in Sullivan vs NY Times, which places the burden on a public official of PROVING that the rag sheet (whichever it may be) was “careless and reckless” in accusing such official. What happened with “innocent until proven guilty”?

Why should the 4th Estate (? 5th Column?) be exempt from the rules that apply to you and me/ If we libel or slander someone (and remember, truth is the ultimate defense) then we have to PAY, PAY, PAY for our foibles.

I truly believe in a free press, but if the sonsabitches lie about me, I want a very large cut of their profits.

[Sorry that I could not italicise the Sullivan case].

Thomas May 29, 2013 at 9:14 am

Prosecutors and Criminal Defense Attorneys judge shop all the time. The law is not always black and white, and to some degree on both sides of law enforcement, the law allows for maneuvering to get your case before a judge you believe more likely to interpret the law the way you do. if you think every other administration has not done that you’re nuts.

Second its a little hard to listen to complaints about snooping by the same people who sat by without complaint or actively applauded the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping of tens of thousands of americans and the illegal interception of the emails of possibly tens of millions of Americans. You may also recall Republicans pushed through retroactive immunity for the telephone companies who assisted the Bush administration in the largest illegal snooping case in US History. As I also recall there were significant calls for the head of the leaker in the Bush Administration who leaked the existence of the illegal wiretapping program as well as calls for the prosecution of the reporters who published the leak.

Also there is this from a July 11, 2012 report by the LA Times.

” Expressing outrage over national security leaks, Republicans on a House Judiciary subcommittee pressed legal experts Wednesday on whether it was possible to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information.

The response was a qualified yes.

“Under certain circumstances, you can see that if someone acting with impunity and knowledge of the consequences goes ahead and publishes it, that is something that I think would be worthy of prosecution and punishment,” said Kenneth Wainstein, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft who specializes in national security.”

So I am curious, is it you contention that it is and should be legal for a reporter to publish classified information even though it may lead to the death of American operatives?

Reply
major major May 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Ahh, the old “but, but…..BUSH” defense. If Bush had never existed, the left would have to invent him just to have a knee-jerk excuse for all the Obama administration’s shenanigans.

Reply
Thomas May 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Interesting reply. I guess it shows you did not read or comprehend my comments. Typical.

My reference to the crimes of the Bush Administration was to point out the hypocrisy and lack of credibility of those claiming to suddenly be surprised, appalled, and shocked by what the Dept. of Justice has done or is doing in regard to a national security leak.

My reference to the LA Times article was to show the Justice Dept. is simply doing what Republicans insisted they should be doing last year. Another case of hypocrisy and lack of credibility.

But the crux of my comments was to question whether they are doing anything wrong at all. If it is possible to prosecute reporters who leak classified information, their surveillance of these reporters is justified and the investigation of a crime.

So what is your position? Should it be legal for a reporter to make public classified information that may or will result in the death of US operatives abroad?

Reply
major major May 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm

So what is your position? Should it be legal for a reporter to make public classified information that may or will result in the death of US operatives abroad?

Since you asked, my position is that journalists hold no special privilege. If they have committed a crime let them be charged. But what the hell do I know? The more relevant question is what is the position of some of the relevant parties?

The position of the first two judges consulted by the DOJ was that the reporter needed to be notified.

The position of Eric Holder, after denying ever having any involvement in a decision to pursue a criminal investigation of a reporter, is that it would not be “wise policy” to do so.

The position of the New York Times Editorial Board was to characterize this as “Another Chilling Leak Investigation” that “shows a heavy tilt toward secrecey and insufficient concern about a free press.”

Perhaps the Holder DOJ has refused to bring charges against the reporter because of a desire to “have their cake and eat it too”. They want to wield their power of wiretapping and record-seizing as a threat against unauthorized reporting without going to trial and dirtying their reputation as First Amendment respecters.

Reply
unusualpost May 29, 2013 at 7:49 pm

MANY first amendment cases need to be revisited by the Supremes. The most egregious attack against one’s reputation is found in Sullivan vs NY Times, which places the burden on a public official of PROVING that the rag sheet (whichever it may be) was “careless and reckless” in accusing such official. What happened with “innocent until proven guilty”?

Why should the 4th Estate (? 5th Column?) be exempt from the rules that apply to you and me? If we libel or slander someone (and remember, truth is the ultimate defense) then we have to PAY, PAY, PAY for our foibles.

I truly believe in a free press, but if the sonsabitches lie about me, I want a very large cut of their profits.

[Sorry that I could not italicise the Sullivan case].

Darth May 29, 2013 at 9:22 am

Still using security assured as a buzzword that they’ve been snooping already without the warrant and not yet been caught, no doubt.

Reply
Darth May 29, 2013 at 9:22 am

Still using security assured as a buzzword that they’ve been snooping already without the warrant and not yet been caught, no doubt.

Reply
Don't tread on me May 29, 2013 at 9:41 am

The Justice Dept is O’s Gestapo and the IRS is O’s SS. He would have made a great NAZI if he were not so Stalinist.

Reply
GrandTango May 29, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Great comment. You are very accurate.

Reply
Don't tread on me May 29, 2013 at 9:41 am

The Justice Dept is O’s Gestapo and the IRS is O’s SS. He would have made a great NAZI if he were not so Stalinist.

Reply
tomstickler May 29, 2013 at 10:47 am

Starting the countdown on how long it will take for this “scandal” to transition to “diligent attention to national security” as the facts of the matter slowly seep through the propaganda.

Reply
tomstickler May 29, 2013 at 10:47 am

Starting the countdown on how long it will take for this “scandal” to transition to “diligent attention to national security” as the facts of the matter slowly seep through the propaganda.

Reply
GrandTango May 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Who told you what Obama is???…
A Little Crow Eating, I suppose by the idolaters….

Reply

Leave a Comment