WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."
Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.
In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.
Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.
Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.
Spokesmen in Machen's office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday.
The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.
A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.
The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."
News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."
It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.
The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.
The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."
The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.
The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.
Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.
He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.
I'm kind of okay with this. I get really sick of hearing about government officials/high ranking individuals leaking information that is related to OPSEC and such, doing so anonymously through the media. Maybe some people violating their security clearances getting canned will make the rest of them shut their mouths about certain things.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.
I wonder why that might be?
Look at the case...
Look at the time frame...
Who was running re-election?
The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.
The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."
The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.
It was an inconvenient story for an administration determined to claim that Al Qaeda was beaten and on the run. The press was pressured into not reporting it.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.
I wonder why that might be?
"If they put one of your guys in the hospital, you put two of their guys in the morgue. Its our way. The Chicago way."
Now back in ancient times you needed a judge to sign off on a wiretap. There's a judge that signed off on this carpet wide tap? Two months for multiple offices and multiple #s? Again I've not heard of that before...ever. Thats...er...different.
LordofHats wrote: Why do I constantly have to keep bringing up the FBI, who pretty much did this kind of thing at will throughout the 30's, 40's, and 50's.
There were laws put in place after that time to prevent such.
Did the DoJ get the warrant? That's unknown now... I haven't seen it... have you?
If they were looking for who's been leaking classified info, then find 'em and throw the book at 'em. But, do it with the parameters of the law... that's in question here.
If they were looking for who's been leaking classified info, then find 'em and throw the book at 'em. But, do it with the parameters of the law... that's in question here.
My guess is that you're assuming the law was broken because the word "secretly" was included in the article featured by the OP.
Its all an attack on people who don't believe government should be run the way the current leadership(Or complete lack thereof) does. Little by little this administration is testing the waters of what they can get away with, I hate to bring up the Boston bombings but its a perfect example of how government proves that we the people have no real rights, How many homes in Water town were raided by police during the martial law "man hunt" for one guy? They were after one fregg'n guy and the police roll around town in tanks and raid homes without warrants.
I never thought I'd say this, but maybe the pro-gun lobby has a point. Since 9/11 freedoms seem to be going down the drain in America (from Republicans and Democrats)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I never thought I'd say this, but maybe the pro-gun lobby has a point. Since 9/11 freedoms seem to be going down the drain in America (from Republicans and Democrats)
Agreed, and this is with both administrations.
DHS Viper roaming and radnomly searching people.
This crap.
I'm ok with snooping purely to catch spies, if it can't be used in court. But this isn't that. Its blanket sweeping up of calls. Thats screaminingly against the Constitution.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed, and this is with both administrations.
DHS Viper roaming and radnomly searching people.
This crap.
Indefinite detention without trial.
Assassination of US citizens without trial, including a child.
Prosecuting the whistleblower who confirmed the use of torture, while refusing to prosecute the torturers themselves.
You forgot that they can now drone strike US citizens.
"“it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” -Eric Holder in a letter to Rand Paul. Jay Carney used the term “it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”“it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States when asked when drone strikes should be used on US citizens.
Jay Carney has said drone strikes would be could be used on American citizens "Actively engaged in combat.".
Being a Marine I wonder when a person is "Actively engaged in combat."? One could suggest that the moment the thought occurs to go against the grain that the person is "Actively engaged in combat.".
Holder backpedaled on that after Paul filibustered on it, because it is in fact illegal for the President to use the military in an offensive manner on U.S. soil, posse comitatus is still a thing. Scary that Holder's the head of the justice department and he doesn't know gak you're supposed to learn in civics class isn't it?
But yes from a freedom's perspective I can't blame ANY ONE for being suspicious of the U.S. Government given what's happened in this country since 9/11, the bills that ALWAYS make it through the Congress with nary a whisper are bills that hurt the people, the Patriot Act, all of the clusterfeth that is the DHS and TSA, the NDAA's indefinite detention provision, the list goes on and if you're not concerned you're not paying attention.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Holder backpedaled on that after Paul filibustered on it, because it is in fact illegal for the President to use the military in an offensive manner on U.S. soil, posse comitatus is still a thing. Scary that Holder's the head of the justice department and he doesn't know gak you're supposed to learn in civics class isn't it?
But yes from a freedom's perspective I can't blame ANY ONE for being suspicious of the U.S. Government given what's happened in this country since 9/11, the bills that ALWAYS make it through the Congress with nary a whisper are bills that hurt the people, the Patriot Act, all of the clusterfeth that is the DHS and TSA, the NDAA's indefinite detention provision, the list goes on and if you're not concerned you're not paying attention.
I agree with you 100%, and have been saying as much for some time now. My principle argument always revolves around the naivete of individuals thinking that they can resist through personal use of force.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Holder backpedaled on that after Paul filibustered on it, because it is in fact illegal for the President to use the military in an offensive manner on U.S. soil, posse comitatus is still a thing. Scary that Holder's the head of the justice department and he doesn't know gak you're supposed to learn in civics class isn't it?
But yes from a freedom's perspective I can't blame ANY ONE for being suspicious of the U.S. Government given what's happened in this country since 9/11, the bills that ALWAYS make it through the Congress with nary a whisper are bills that hurt the people, the Patriot Act, all of the clusterfeth that is the DHS and TSA, the NDAA's indefinite detention provision, the list goes on and if you're not concerned you're not paying attention.
Your forefathers rebelled against he British for a lot less.
Nothing seems to change in Washington. It's almost as if they get together every four years and decide on a new face.
“It was a very large number of records that were obtained, including phone records from Hartford, New York, Washington, from the U.S. House of Representatives and elsewhere where AP has bureaus. It included home and cellphone numbers from a number of AP reporters,” Schulz says.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Holder backpedaled on that after Paul filibustered on it, because it is in fact illegal for the President to use the military in an offensive manner on U.S. soil, posse comitatus is still a thing. Scary that Holder's the head of the justice department and he doesn't know gak you're supposed to learn in civics class isn't it?
But yes from a freedom's perspective I can't blame ANY ONE for being suspicious of the U.S. Government given what's happened in this country since 9/11, the bills that ALWAYS make it through the Congress with nary a whisper are bills that hurt the people, the Patriot Act, all of the clusterfeth that is the DHS and TSA, the NDAA's indefinite detention provision, the list goes on and if you're not concerned you're not paying attention.
Your forefathers rebelled against he British for a lot less.
Nothing seems to change in Washington. It's almost as if they get together every four years and decide on a new face.
Not my forefathers in particular, we were in Ireland and Germany respectively till the early 20th century, but yes. It's... disturbing to say the least. The status in Washington is clearly changing from civil service to power preservation and control.
Not my forefathers in particular, we were in Ireland and Germany respectively till the early 20th century, but yes. It's... disturbing to say the least. The status in Washington is clearly changing from civil service to power preservation and control.
Oligarchy folks.
Hyperbole much?
The line being pushed right now is that "this was an attempt to locate individuals who were talking to the media about sensitive matters".
If you can't come out and say something for reasons such as operational security(or to a more common extent: you don't want your name associated with an event when it has already blown up in your face); you really have no business saying it to the media.
Kanluwen wrote: The line being pushed right now is that "this was an attempt to locate individuals who were talking to the media about sensitive matters".
If you can't come out and say something for reasons such as operational security(or to a more common extent: you don't want your name associated with an event when it has already blown up in your face); you really have no business saying it to the media.
I realise that defending evil empires is pretty much your schtick, but you don't know what you're talking about. Look at John Kiriakou: he was persecuted, prosecuted and sentenced for telling the media that the CIA was torturing people. If you want to protect the operational security of people committing crimes against humanity, you are a horrible person. Or Bradley Manning: if you don't want people to know you're committing war crimes, don't commit war crimes! Don't fething murder civilians in cold blood for attempting to give first aid to injured journalists.
Kanluwen wrote: The line being pushed right now is that "this was an attempt to locate individuals who were talking to the media about sensitive matters".
If you can't come out and say something for reasons such as operational security(or to a more common extent: you don't want your name associated with an event when it has already blown up in your face); you really have no business saying it to the media.
I realise that defending evil empires is pretty much your schtick, but you don't know what you're talking about. Look at John Kiriakou: he was persecuted, prosecuted and sentenced for telling the media that the CIA was torturing people. If you want to protect the operational security of people committing crimes against humanity, you are a horrible person. Or Bradley Manning: if you don't want people to know you're committing war crimes, don't commit war crimes! Don't fething murder civilians in cold blood for attempting to give first aid to injured journalists.
Dang Alex, QFT man.
I didn't notice any threads pointing out the fact DHS is buying 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition. (The expensive, made to kill a man kinda ammo thats too expensive to use as target practice.) So I'll point it out here, kinda a few months old news though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That is right when he says our forefathers would of been shooting by now. When 1/3 of your hard earned pay check is taken away for un represented taxes its liable to make men angry. Atleast our forefathers knew why they had to pay taxes, England went to war with France for us, we were just to cheap to pay them back. (Jokes! Jokes!!)
d-usa wrote: If you haven't seen those, then your search skills suck.
Been debated to death here, multiple times.
Dang d-usa I'll have to file a law suit against you for emotional trama. I went to collage to improve my search skills and you just had to break me down. OH, The emotional trama!
I need quick money to pay off the student loans I acquired while attending google search school
The status in Washington is clearly changing from civil service to power preservation and control.
Political bodies are always trying to preserve their power, ironically because if they lose power they lose the ability to fulfill their function. Washington's agenda has always been power preservation because it is in the nature of governments to try and preserve/expand power. This does not exclude them from being civil servants (stupidity does that just fine).
I never cared that much for guns in America, but in the last few years since I started studying American history and politics, I'm thinking maybe the pro-gun side have a point.
I mean, Obama has pretty much given himself the right to assassinate anybody he wants, the patriot act seems to have dumped the brown stuff all over civil liberties, and if recent events with associated press are anything to go by, it's going to get worse.
From a historical perspective :p should this be a surprise?
I was reading that the Klu Klux Klan were the first to push for gun control (they weren't happy at African American veterans from the civil war walking around with guns) and that in the 1960s Ronald Regan of all people did some gun control stuff in California! I thought the guy was a American hero
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton went to town against habeas corpus after Oklahoma and Waco, and Bush...well
Anyway, so yeah, maybe pro-gunners have a point, especially considering the forces their government can deploy against them.
Kanluwen wrote: The line being pushed right now is that "this was an attempt to locate individuals who were talking to the media about sensitive matters".
If you can't come out and say something for reasons such as operational security(or to a more common extent: you don't want your name associated with an event when it has already blown up in your face); you really have no business saying it to the media.
I realise that defending evil empires is pretty much your schtick, but you don't know what you're talking about. Look at John Kiriakou: he was persecuted, prosecuted and sentenced for telling the media that the CIA was torturing people. If you want to protect the operational security of people committing crimes against humanity, you are a horrible person. Or Bradley Manning: if you don't want people to know you're committing war crimes, don't commit war crimes! Don't fething murder civilians in cold blood for attempting to give first aid to injured journalists.
There is a very large difference between whistle blowing and Bradley Manning.
Bradley Manning was a chump who started leaking documents; later claiming "an attack of conscience" after he got caught.
Kanluwen wrote: The line being pushed right now is that "this was an attempt to locate individuals who were talking to the media about sensitive matters".
If you can't come out and say something for reasons such as operational security(or to a more common extent: you don't want your name associated with an event when it has already blown up in your face); you really have no business saying it to the media.
I realise that defending evil empires is pretty much your schtick, but you don't know what you're talking about. Look at John Kiriakou: he was persecuted, prosecuted and sentenced for telling the media that the CIA was torturing people. If you want to protect the operational security of people committing crimes against humanity, you are a horrible person. Or Bradley Manning: if you don't want people to know you're committing war crimes, don't commit war crimes! Don't fething murder civilians in cold blood for attempting to give first aid to injured journalists.
There is a very large difference between whistle blowing and Bradley Manning.
Bradley Manning was a chump who started leaking documents; later claiming "an attack of conscience" after he got caught.
Yeah, please don't give Bradely Manning for having any sort of a spine or courage. Whistle blowing's a tough thing to do, and depending on how it's done is absolutely can and will bite you in the arse, but Manning was and is just a loser.
Yeah no I'm shocked Bush didn't get strung up by the ankles in the public square along with the entire membership of congress for the Patriot Act.
LuciusAR wrote:As an outsider it still amazes me that the American public allowed the Patriot act.
They didn't have a choice. The senate allegedly voted on it without reading it; it was a document that was so labyrinthine that it was nearly impossible to make sense of, and it had a name that made everyone shout "Murica! Feth yeah!". It was drafted out of fear, and voted on out of fear, without a second thought. There was no part of the legislative process surrounding the Patriot Act that did not let the American public down.
LuciusAR wrote:As an outsider it still amazes me that the American public allowed the Patriot act.
They didn't have a choice. The senate allegedly voted on it without reading it; it was a document that was so labyrinthine that it was nearly impossible to make sense of, and it had a name that made everyone shout "Murica! Feth yeah!". It was drafted out of fear, and voted on out of fear, without a second thought. There was no part of the legislative process surrounding the Patriot Act that did not let the American public down.
As a non citizen of the USA (note how I said USA and not American in case you replied I'm a North America ) you may not be able to answer this, but if the act is so bad, how come the supreme court haven't struck it down yet? I thought they loved striking down acts of congress?
LuciusAR wrote:As an outsider it still amazes me that the American public allowed the Patriot act.
They didn't have a choice. The senate allegedly voted on it without reading it; it was a document that was so labyrinthine that it was nearly impossible to make sense of, and it had a name that made everyone shout "Murica! Feth yeah!". It was drafted out of fear, and voted on out of fear, without a second thought. There was no part of the legislative process surrounding the Patriot Act that did not let the American public down.
As a non citizen of the USA (note how I said USA and not American in case you replied I'm a North America ) you may not be able to answer this, but if the act is so bad, how come the supreme court haven't struck it down yet? I thought they loved striking down acts of congress?
EDIT: however, the supreme court cannot simply strike down an Act because it is a terrible piece of legislation -there must be a legal precedent for it, such as its violation of constitutional rights (lots of that in the Patriot Act). In fact, some elements of it were such insane violations of privacy that Canada had to draft its own legislation in order to protect Canadian citizens from having their rights violated.
LuciusAR wrote:As an outsider it still amazes me that the American public allowed the Patriot act.
They didn't have a choice. The senate allegedly voted on it without reading it; it was a document that was so labyrinthine that it was nearly impossible to make sense of, and it had a name that made everyone shout "Murica! Feth yeah!". It was drafted out of fear, and voted on out of fear, without a second thought. There was no part of the legislative process surrounding the Patriot Act that did not let the American public down.
LuciusAR wrote:As an outsider it still amazes me that the American public allowed the Patriot act.
They didn't have a choice. The senate allegedly voted on it without reading it; it was a document that was so labyrinthine that it was nearly impossible to make sense of, and it had a name that made everyone shout "Murica! Feth yeah!". It was drafted out of fear, and voted on out of fear, without a second thought. There was no part of the legislative process surrounding the Patriot Act that did not let the American public down.
LuciusAR wrote:As an outsider it still amazes me that the American public allowed the Patriot act.
They didn't have a choice. The senate allegedly voted on it without reading it; it was a document that was so labyrinthine that it was nearly impossible to make sense of, and it had a name that made everyone shout "Murica! Feth yeah!". It was drafted out of fear, and voted on out of fear, without a second thought. There was no part of the legislative process surrounding the Patriot Act that did not let the American public down.
Irony is thy name my good friend.
(in reference to Obamacare)
That's not irony.
I did not draft the ACA.
Heh... my logic must be ration'ed at the moment, like they ration Healthcare in Canada.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wanted to post an update...
The DOJ admitted to obtaining call records from a phone used by the AP in the House press gallery, which is … different from tapping a room used by congressmen to talk shop.
It's still a concern... but Nunes was sloppy here IMO.
Former Obama-administration press secretary Robert Gibbs said the DOJ has not provided enough of an explanation for its seizure of Associated Press reporters’ phone records, and that “the onus clearly on the Justice Department” to provide a clear explanation.
“Right now, we’ve sort of been struck by the fact that nobody’s explained why you needed such a broad subpoena, why so many people’s records were subpoenaed,” Gibbs said on Morning Joe today. “I know it’s difficult in the middle of an investigation, but I think, quite frankly, it’s something that’s sort of largely owed to the American people.”
EDIT:
Given the cooperation shown by the AP after the leak, these violations are not just puzzling but arguably unconscionable.
They are very obviously meant to be punitive and intimidating, attempting to scare one of the largest news agencies from probing the Obama administration too closely and warning potential sources that they cannot expect protection from any news agency.
After all, if the Obama administration can do this to the AP, they’re not likely to shy away from doing it to any other organization.
And that's why all the usual media folks are protecting their own.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well... this is gaining steam. I mentioned in the IRS thread that this may not be as big of a deal.
However, evidently 3 foxnews journalist were apparently targeted by the DoJ.
If James Rosen, William La Jeunesse, and Mike Levine are "co-conspirators", as officially designated as such by the apparatus of the State for talking to a government source, then which reporters in Washington are NOT also "co-conspirators"?
Is it a surprise that Sharyl Attkisson may have been targetd too?
If it can be proven (which is really, really hard to prove that)... that bodes REALLY bad for the DoJ.
Via the Chris Stigall Show and WPHT in Philadelphia. Two weeks ago, this wouldn’t have been worth posting; Attkisson herself, I suspect, wouldn’t have mentioned it publicly. Even if she’s right about something fishy going on, there are other plausible culprits besides the U.S. government when it comes to reporters’ computers being infiltrated. Two weeks later, though, knowing now that the DOJ was willing to order a dragnet of AP reporters’ phone records and actually read James Rosen’s e-mails, there’s no way around the obvious suspicion. If the feds were willing to monitor Rosen and the AP in the name of cracking down on leakers, why wouldn’t they monitor the one reporter from non-Fox big media who’s done more digging on Fast and Furious and Benghazi than anyone else?
Attkisson told Laura Ingraham in October 2011 that a White House official had screamed and cursed at her for her reporting. The DOJ wasn’t happy either:
I’m certainly not the one to make the case for DOJ and White House about what I’m doing wrong. They will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.
Which government sources were aiding and abetting this “unreasonable” reporter? There was one obvious way to find out. Any comment, DOJ?
Here’s the clip. The full Stigall podcast can be found here. Obvious exit question: Whether Attkisson was monitored or not, it can’t be just the AP and Rosen whom the feds have snooped on in four years. How many other reporters?
Jihadin wrote: Obama playing Dodgeball inside a phone booth for this week
What a great visual.
Well guys, he said he'd have more flexibility after the election. Now you know what he meant!
All joking aside, I think it's time for Congress to do their job and start exercising their oversight powers.
All the facts aren't out yet about either of those things, so I will withhold my final opinion, but the IRS thing smells more and more every day, and now this. This looks pretty damn bad imo, very much the imperial presidency.
Shannon Bream just reported on Hannity that court records appear to reflect phone records were obtained for multiple Fox News lines at multiple locations. The records were partially redacted, but the area codes and exchanges match up.
Shannon Bream ✔ @ShannonBream
I'll join @SeanHannity in minutes - with latest on govt's probe into @FoxNews employee/office records/phones
7:59 PM - 21 May 2013
Newly uncovered court documents show the Justice Department seized phone records associated with several Fox News lines as part of a leak investigation — a revelation that comes as the White House Correspondents’ Association spoke out against the administration’s monitoring of reporters.
Documents from October 2011 appear to show exchanges that match the specific locations of Fox News’ White House, Pentagon, State Department and other operations. The last four digits of each of the phone numbers listed are redacted in the government filing so it is impossible to know the full numbers.
The Obama Justice Department has seized the phone records of numbers that are associated with White House staffers and, apparently, with Fox News reporters, according to a document filed in the case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, on October 13, 2011. Kim is a former State Department contractor accused of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information to James Rosen, a Fox News reporter. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is prosecuting the case, has seized records associated with two phone numbers at the White House, at least five numbers associated with Fox News, and one that has the same area code and exchange as Rosen’s personal-cell-phone number (the last four numbers are redacted).
The six Cincinnati workers we have identified, who sent scrutinizing letters to conservative groups with words including "patriot, liberty, tea party or 9-12" in their names are Mitchel Steele, Carly Young, Joseph Herr, Stephen Seok, Liz Hofacre and a woman identified only as Ms. Richards.
But was all of this done at the hands of a small group of Cincinnati employees working together? During Friday's congressional hearing, that appeared to be the theme. Now, that explanation just became less likely.
Thanks to two FOX19 sources connected to the IRS, we now understand the chain of command for these workers.
Mitchel Steele, Carly Young, Joseph Herr and Liz Hofacre are IRS agents. Stephen Seok is a supervisor IRS agent.
But according to the IRS employee directory that FOX19 has obtained exclusively, each of these agents has a different manager and then above them a different territory manager.
That is important because while it may sound reasonable to the average person that these workers began targeting groups on their own, the IRS structure is designed to prevent that.
Here is how that works.
When an application for tax exempt status comes into the IRS, agents have 270 days to work through that application. If the application is not processed within those 270 days it automatically triggers flags in the system. When that happens, individual agents are required to input a status update on that individual case once a month, every month until the case is resolved.
Keep in mind, at least 300 groups were targeted out of Cincinnati alone. Those applications spent anywhere from 18 months to nearly 3 years in the system and some still don't have their non-profit status. 300 groups multiplied by at least 18 months for each group, means thousands of red flags would have been generated in the system.
So who in the chain of command would have received all these flags? The answer, according to the IRS directory, one woman in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas, the Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Division. Because all six of our IRS workers have different individual and territory managers, Cindy Thomas is one manager they all have common.
It turns out Cindy Thomas' name is one we have heard before. The independent journalism group ProPublica says in November of 2012 they had requested information on conservatives groups that had received non-profit status. Along with that information, the IRS released private information on nine conservative groups that had not yet been approved and personal information had not been redacted. The person who signed off on that release, Cindy Thomas. (whembly: WTF!!!!!!!)
What this means for you... consider this chain of command since the story broke.
Former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller… retires
Joseph Grant, Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities... retires.
Lois Lerner, Head of Exempt Organization…says she will invoke her 5th amendment right to not incriminate herself when called before Congress on Wednesday.
Holly Paz, Director of Exempt Organizations, subpoenaed to Washington to be interviewed by members of Congress.
All of this IRS leadership, in Washington D.C.
Then one level down is Cindy Thomas, the highest ranking employee in Cincinnati in this Tax Exempt and Government Entities Department that no one in Congress is talking to... yet.
Looks like the IG's investigation ended a full year ago, despite telling Congress to the contrary (thats called a lie guys). Sounds like contempt of Congress charges are in order for at least one guy.
So if this ended so long ago, how come no one has been fired again?
Frazzled wrote: Looks like the IG's investigation ended a full year ago, despite telling Congress to the contrary (thats called a lie guys). Sounds like contempt of Congress charges are in order for at least one guy.
So if this ended so long ago, how come no one has been fired again?
Frazzled wrote: Looks like the IG's investigation ended a full year ago, despite telling Congress to the contrary (thats called a lie guys). Sounds like contempt of Congress charges are in order for at least one guy.
So if this ended so long ago, how come no one has been fired again?
I'd hate to be a cleaner in Congress, because it looks like there's going to be an awful lot of blood spilled over this. It seems that the more information that comes out about the IRS there are more questions raised than answers given.
Copy & paste from Frazz's link for those reading on phones/work blocked (my emphasis added)
Tempers flared in a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Wednesday, with members on both sides of the aisle castigating the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative groups with special scrutiny, and then hiding the practice from Congress.
Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee's chairman, said that the committee learned just yesterday that the IRS completed its own investigation a year before a Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed.
But despite the IRS recognizing in May 2012 that its employees were treating right-wing groups differently from other organizations, Issa said, IRS personnel withheld those conclusions from legislators.
'Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,' Issa said. 'While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General's report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 - May 3 of 2012 - and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later.'
'Think about it,' he continued: 'For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.'
Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin testified that he was unaware of that IRS investigation until he read other officials prepared testimony just a few days ago.
Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, made a brief opening statement recounting the recent history of the agency's scandal. Her attorney told the committee on Tuesday in a letter that she would refuse to answer questions by invoking her protections under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
'I have not done anything wrong,' she said. 'I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.'
Issa dismissed Lerner from the hearing, over objections from South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, who insisted that she should be forced to answer questions since she had 'waived her right' to refuse 'by issuing an opening statement.'
'She ought to stay and answer questions,' Gowdy said, to sudden applause from some in the audience gallery. Issa then kept Lerner in the hearing room, asking her if she would answer any questions at all.
'I will not answer any questions or testify today,' she replied.
Issa then asked if she would answer questions about her previous testimony before Congress.
'i decline to answer that question, for reasons I have already given.'
Lerner was dismissed a second time and left the hearing room with her lawyer, but not before Issa cautioned that she could be recalled and forced to testify in the future if committee attorneys determined that she had forfeited her Fifth Amendment rights by making an opening statement.
One top Democrat breathed fire, warning that prosecutions could result.
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch said that if witnesses stonewalled the committee there would be legal consequences.
'If you refuse to answer,' Lynch said, 'you will leave us no choice but to ask for a special counsel or the appointment of a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this.'
'I hope that’s not the approach of the IRS going forward,'he added. 'Because there will be hell to pay.'
Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, linked the tea party scandal with the implementation of President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
'This administration, this agency, the very agency charged with enforcing Obamacare,' Jordan said in an opening statement, 'systematically targeted groups that came into existence because they opposed Obamacare - and they started the targeting the very month, March 2010, that Obamacare came into law - expects us to believe it is the work of ‘two rogue agents.'
The Obama administration, Jordan reminded those in the hearing room, also 'told us and told the American people that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was the work - was caused by a video.
'The people don’t buy it,' he said. 'The American people get it. They just want this administration to give them the truth. And that’s why this hearing is so important.'
Wolin also disclosed that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew got a heads-up in March - a month before White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler - that an Inspector General report would soon be issued. That notification, he said, came from the Inspector General himself.
'On March 15, 2013, Mr. George had a short introductory meeting with Secretary Lew,' Wolin's prepared remarks read.
'At that meeting, Mr. George informed Secretary Lew of a number of matters TIGTA [the Inspector General office] was reviewing. He also indicated that this audit report would be forthcoming. Mr. George did not describe any details of his audit findings. This was also in line with standard practice.'
Florida Republican Rep. John Mica explained in his remarks why the IRS scandal may have overtaken the other two public-perception challenges that the Obama administration faces, whose being the 2012 Benghazi terror attack and the Justice Department's spying on reporters.
His tax-paying constituents, Mica said, find that it resonates especially well with them.
'I don’t think I've ever seen any investigation or review by this committee or subject that has so riveted and shocked the American people,' Mica said.
'I went home last weekend and almost to a person everyone asked me about this.'
A local newsman was fired from a CBS affiliated newstation:
My producer, Kevin, was just contacted by someone with Conners’s legal team. KMOV just terminated his employed on the basis of, according to them, his Facebook post, which I first covered here.
Posting something on a corporate site you have access to that wasn't approved by corporate is grounds for firing in most companies and is not unusual. I wouldn't be so quick to wrap this wrinkle into the larger story just yet. After all, it's going to be difficult to simultaneously argue that the media is in the tank for obama while also being persecuted by the IRS on his behalf, yes?
That being said - he said he was "hammered" by the IRS since then. Hammered... how? Was he suddenly audited every year? This sounds like the follow up question that should have been asked, but wasn't. Perhaps Darrell Issa will have a chance to ask it at some point.
Ouze wrote: Posting something on a corporate site you have access to that wasn't approved by corporate is grounds for firing in most companies and is not unusual. I wouldn't be so quick to wrap this wrinkle into the larger story just yet. After all, it's going to be difficult to simultaneously argue that the media is in the tank for obama while also being persecuted by the IRS on his behalf, yes?
That being said - he said he was "hammered" by the IRS since then. Hammered... how? Was he suddenly audited every year? This sounds like the follow up question that should have been asked, but wasn't. Perhaps Darrell Issa will have a chance to ask it at some point.
But he didn't post anything inappropriate about his corporation....
The "whole media is in tank for Obama" died down at the moment when the AP scandal broke out.
It's not that it was about the corporation, it's that it wasn't an approved message (regardless of the content). I'm speaking in generalities since the OP has been removed and I don't know what he said.
Ouze wrote: It's not that it was about the corporation, it's that it wasn't an approved message (regardless of the content). I'm speaking in generalities since the OP has been removed and I don't know what he said.
And you don't think that "looks bad"?
So... he posted something on his personal FB that was not in any way "contrary" to KMOV. He states his opinion...
Their post indicates it was not his personal facebook, but rather a corporate facebook account. Is that not so? the URL - https://www.facebook.com/LarryConnersKMOV/ - strongly indicates he does not own the account. As such, any unauthorized posting could get him fired regardless of how the company feels about the issue.
So far as looks bad, who knows - we can't see any of the content in question at all. I'm saying we cannot infer anything from what is now non-existent. Is there perhaps a cached copy somewhere?
Ouze wrote: Their post indicates it was not his personal facebook, but rather a corporate facebook account. Is that not so? the URL - https://www.facebook.com/LarryConnersKMOV/ - strongly indicates he does not own the account. As such, any unauthorized posting could get him fired regardless of how the company feels about the issue.
So far as looks bad, who knows - we can't see any of the content in question at all. I'm saying we cannot infer anything from what is now non-existent. Is there perhaps a cached copy somewhere?
Oh... I see. This is what he said (I still have it on my FB):
Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS.
I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
At the time, I dismissed the “co-incidence”, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members.
Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name.
Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run … any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement.
In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn’t doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.
I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s “out of touch” because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.
The President’s face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.
That’s to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush’s staff when he didn’t like my questions.
Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda – political or otherwise – at the expense of the reporting the truth.
What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.
Can I prove it? At this time, no.
But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.
Conners had asked questions such as:
“The economy is a big concern for folks, I mean the unemployment, trying to make ends meet, gas prices, food prices going up. Some of our viewers are complaining that they get frustrated and angered when they see the first family jetting around different vacations and so forth …”
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: The IRS did find that they owed back-taxes prior to the interview... (Saw that in the STL Post, but can't find it).
But the thing is he never TOOK a political position on the posts in question. He stated a) that he was being investigated by the IRS following his interview. b) added in later that he admitted to back tax issues in a followup stl post. As for appearance of bias... HOLY CRAP, do they even watch their own broadcasts anymore? But, hey... it's St. Louis. *shrugs*
I saw this on my twitter feed... Kristen Powers, a liberal democrat, reminded everyone that leaks that make Obama look good aren't beinginvestigated,. Remember the OBL operation with Team Seal 6? Yeah... that was a leak.
whembly wrote: Holy smokes... just saw this on my MSNBC twitter feed...
Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen
Um... didn't he testify in front of congress that he recused himself? Or, was that the AP one...???
o.O It's hard to keep the scandals straight these days.
In fairness you aren't the only one. The Administration seems to be having problems too judging by how often they have to revise their version of events
Yeah, it was the Ap case that he recused himself from, although there are questions over when he did and the manner in which he did.
“First of all you’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material. This has not fared well in American history… 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.“
And yet Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, via NBC:
Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.
The disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack Obama, in a major speech on his counterterrorism policy, said Holder had agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve journalists.
"I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable," Obama said. "Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs."
Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant that enabled Justice Department investigators to secretly seize his private emails after an FBI agent said he had "asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information."
Obama's comments follow a firestorm of criticism that has erupted over disclosures that in separate investigations of leaks of classified information, the Justice Department had obtained private emails that Rosen exchanged with a source and the phone records of Associated Press reporters.
Holder previously said he recused himself from the AP subpoena because he had been questioned as a witness in the underlying investigation into a leak about a foiled bomb plot in Yemen. His role in personally approving the Rosen search warrant had not been previously reported.
A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Department of Justice later issued a statement about the review of media guidelines: “This review is consistent with Attorney General Holder's long-standing belief that freedom of the press is essential to our democracy," it said. "At the same time, the attorney general believes that leaks of classified information damage our national security and must be investigated using appropriate law enforcement tools. We remain steadfast in our commitment to following all laws and regulations intended to safeguard national security as well as the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it."
The law enforcement official said Holder's approval of the Rosen search, in the spring of 2010, came after senior Justice officials concluded there was "probable cause" that Rosen's communications with his source, identified as intelligence analyst Stephen Kim, met the legal burden for such searches. "It was approved at the highest levels-- and I mean the highest," said the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said that explicitly included Holder.
Kim has since been indicted on charges that he leaked classified information to Rosen about how North Korea would respond to a United Nations resolution condemning the country's nuclear program. He has denied the charges.
In an affidavit in support of a search warrant to Google for Rosen's emails, an FBI agent wrote that the Fox News journalist -- identified only as "the Reporter" -- had "asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information."
"The Reporter did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim's vanity and ego,” it continued. “Much like an intelligence officer would run a clandestine intelligence source, the Reporter instructed Mr. Kim on a covert communications plan that involved" emails from his gmail account.
The affidavit states that FBI agents had tracked Rosen’s entrances and exits of the State Department in order to show that they had coincided with Kim’s movements. Based on that and other findings, the affidavit by FBI Agent Reginald B. Reyes, stated, “There is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation” of the Espionage Act “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator of Mr. Kim.”
It also said that Google was specifically instructed not to notify “the subscriber” -- Rosen -- that his emails were being seized.
In new documents disclosed Thursday, the Justice Department sought and obtained approval to keep the search warrant, which was approved by a federal magistrate, under seal. It was unsealed in November 2011, but never made a part of the docket of Kim’s case and went unnoticed until this week.
Justice officials have since said they do not intend to criminally charge Rosen, but media groups have condemned the issuance of the search warrant itself.
"The Justice Department's decision to treat routine newsgathering efforts as evidence of criminality is extremely troubling and corrodes time-honored understandings between the public and the government about the role of the free press," said Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
In his speech Thursday, Obama reiterated his determination to pursue leak investigations. "We must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information," he said.
But, he said, "Our focus must be on those who break the law," not journalists. He said he was calling on Congress to pass a media shield law and had raised the issue with Holder, "who shares my concern."
As part of the Justice Department review of guidelines, the president said, Holder will convene a group of media organizations to hear their views and “report back to me by July 12th."
And yet... Holdner is tasked to review... himself?
o.O
I must be off the reservation... but, isn't that a conflict of interest there?
The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.
The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.
E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”
He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”
Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.
The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.
According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”(whembly:!!!)
The government, which accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the Kim case, cast a wide net in its search of Rosen’s e-mail. Among other things, the search warrant requested access to:
—“Records or information related to Stephen Kim’s or the Author’s knowledge of laws, regulations, rules and/or procedures prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of national defense or classified information.”
—“Any classified document, image, record, or information, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”
—“Any document, image, record, or information concerning the national defense, including but not limited to documents, maps, plans, diagrams, guides, manuals, and other Department of Defense, U.S. military, and/or weapons material, as well as sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”
—“Records or information related to the state of mind of any individuals seeking the disclosure or receipt of classified, intelligence and/or national defense information.”
In addition, the Justice Department searched the account for any Internet services Rosen may have accessed and records of “data transfer volume,” suggesting the government was looking for evidence that Rosen downloaded large quantities of potentially classified information.
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.
Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.
Stolen from my twitter feed:
Do you see what's going on there? Not only do they want to see which of Obama's people are disloyal in the actual case, they also want to keep secretly reading a private citizen's email for years in order to find other sources of leaks in other matters.
News Corp. Says It Was Not Told of Subpoena for Reporter’s Phone Records
News Corporation said on Sunday that it had no record of being notified by the Justice Department nearly three years ago of a subpoena for the telephone records of a reporter at its Fox News cable channel.
The company’s chief legal counsel at the time also said that he had never seen material from the government related to the subpoena.
The Justice Department has signaled that it notified News Corporation on Aug. 27, 2010, that it had seized the phone records of a Fox News reporter — who turned out to be the Washington correspondent James Rosen — after one of his articles had included details of a secret United States report on North Korea.
The seizure was part of the department’s case against Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department contractor investigated in connection with the North Korea leak. Mr. Kim has pleaded not guilty to leaking information and is awaiting trial. Fox News has denied that it knew about the subpoena, while Justice Department officials have said they sent notification 90 days after obtaining the records.
A law enforcement official said on Sunday that in the investigation that led to the indictment of Mr. Kim, “the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media.” This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, added, “Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures, the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile and e-mail.”
A Fox News executive said the channel had never heard of the Justice Department investigation and had no knowledge of New Corporation ever being notified. A News Corporation spokesman said Sunday that the company was looking into the matter of notification. “While we don’t take issue with the D.O.J.’s account that they sent a notice to News Corp., we do not have a record of ever having received it,” Nathaniel Brown, the spokesman, said.
Last week, The Washington Post obtained an affidavit that described Mr. Rosen (without naming him) as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” The investigation relates to a 2009 article Mr. Rosen published on FoxNews.com that quoted a source describing missile activity in North Korea.
In e-mail to employees on Thursday, Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, rejected the validity of the investigation. “We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth,” Mr. Ailes said.
Lawrence A. Jacobs, who was News Corporation’s chief legal officer until he left in June 2011, said he never saw a notification about the phone records.
“I would have remembered getting a fax from the Justice Department,” Mr. Jacobs said in an interview Sunday. “These are not the kinds of things that happen every day.”
He added, “The first thing I would’ve done would be to call Roger Ailes.”
News Corporation said it had conducted a thorough search of its legal records, including, Mr. Jacobs said, a scan of his e-mails and other relevant materials, and has found nothing related to the investigation. “The inference that I sat on this and didn’t share it with Roger couldn’t be further from the truth,” Mr. Jacobs said.
The investigation into Mr. Rosen’s phone records and personal e-mail became public only after The Associated Press said two weeks ago that the government had subpoenaed telephone records in a different leak investigation.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, did not comment specifically on the Fox News investigation, but said last week at a news briefing that President Obama “believes, I think, as all of his predecessors believed, that it is imperative that leaks that can jeopardize the lives of American men and women serving overseas should not be tolerated.”
The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.
The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.
E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”
He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”
Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.
The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.
According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”
The government, which accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the Kim case, cast a wide net in its search of Rosen’s e-mail. Among other things, the search warrant requested access to:
—“Records or information related to Stephen Kim’s or the Author’s knowledge of laws, regulations, rules and/or procedures prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of national defense or classified information.”
—“Any classified document, image, record, or information, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”
—“Any document, image, record, or information concerning the national defense, including but not limited to documents, maps, plans, diagrams, guides, manuals, and other Department of Defense, U.S. military, and/or weapons material, as well as sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”
—“Records or information related to the state of mind of any individuals seeking the disclosure or receipt of classified, intelligence and/or national defense information.”
In addition, the Justice Department searched the account for any Internet services Rosen may have accessed and records of “data transfer volume,” suggesting the government was looking for evidence that Rosen downloaded large quantities of potentially classified information.
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.
Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.
The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.
“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.
As I and some other right-leaning journalists pointed out last week, this cannot be squared with the revelation that Holder signed off on the James Rosen search warrant.
The catch is this: If Holder never considered prosecution of journalists including Rosen, then the affidavit laying out a purported criminal case against Rosen was a ruse, a false statement under oath, directed to the court to conduct a wide-ranging dragnet. If, on the other hand, the affidavit which Holder signed off on is true in laying out the case against Rosen, then he didn’t level with Congress. In either event, he needs to come back and explain himself. If he refuses or takes the Fifth, there is no alternative but to name a special prosecutor.
Liberals scoff at the notion that Holder might be forced to resign, but if he is now a subject of further investigation, it is untenable for him to remain and preposterous for him to conduct a probe of the Justice Department as the president ordered.
Holder must be feeling the heat, for how else to explain a ludicrous puff piece in the Daily Beast waxing lyrical on the attorney general: “[S]ources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department’s—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves.”
It’s reached the point that if I want to interview anyone in the administration on camera—from the lowest-level worker to a White House official—I have to go through the White House Press Office. If their chosen spokesman turns out to have no direct connection to the story of the moment—as was the case when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out to explain the Benghazi episode—then that’s what we, and you the taxpayer, get, and it usually isn’t much.”
“So I am glad the president has asked the attorney general to review whether his investigations into leaks is having a chilling effect on journalists,” said Schieffer in closing. “But it shouldn’t stop there. The president needs to rethink his entire communications policy top to bottom. It is hurting his credibility and shortchanging the public. And to head the review, how about someone other than the attorney general whose department is so deeply involved? That makes no sense to me.
Indeed. The new strategy probably should leave out the weepy, woe-is-me routine and the trial balloon that he signed off on something he didn’t believe in. How does that work exactly? He sounds like a man on defense, not the attorney general. And his troubles may have only begun.
How about this for a new communications plan: No one investigates themselves. No one take the Firth. No executive privilege is asserted to protect anyone in the White House from testifying. Everyone tells the truth. And Holder goes. Otherwise it just looks like more spin and more prevarication from a White House determined to do everything but tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Washington (CNN) - Under fire for seeking records of journalists' communications, government officials pushed back Wednesday against statements from Fox News that it was not notified about government subpoenas to the organization.
On Wednesday a law enforcement official showed CNN paperwork to support Justice's claim that on August 27, 2010 three messages were sent out about the subpoenas and went to both a lawyer for Fox News' parent company, News Corporation, and reporter James Rosen.
...
The official said two notifications were sent to Lawrence Jacobs who was the senior counsel for News Corporation. The law enforcement official showed CNN a fax receipt with a time stamp to show something was faxed to Jacobs at precisely 4:09 pm on August 27. In addition, CNN was shown a U.S. Postal Service certified mail receipt indicating a registered letter was sent to Jacobs the same day. The official did not show the messages sent to Jacobs
