http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/lerner-irs-held-contempt/2013/05/22/id/505922
Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'
Wednesday, 22 May 2013 06:40 PM
Alert: Obama Movie Exposes Frightening Agenda. Get the DVD Here.
"She's in trouble. She can be held in contempt," Dershowitz told "the Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail."
Lerner, grilled Wednesday on the IRS' targeting of conservative organizations, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — but not before insisting "I have done nothing wrong."
Her brief statement of innocence has opened a legal Pandora's Box, according to Dershowitz.
"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said.
"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."
He said the fact that Lerner went ahead with her proclamation of could be considered malpractice on the part of her attorney — although it's possible she overruled the advice she received.
"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond," he said.
"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."
He said the issue goes back to the "bad old days" of McCarthyism, during hearings in which suspected Communists were grilled by the House on American Activities Committee and Senate committees.
"[They] tried to trap people by saying, look, you're a Fifth Amendment communist, you won't answer any questions," he said.
Latest: Is Benghazi a Cover Up? Is Obama at the Heart of It? Vote Here
"And the people would say we'd love to answer your questions but we can't because if we do, we waive [our rights] and then you'll ask us who our friends are and who else was a member of the Communist Party . . .
"The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/22/the-insiders-a-special-prosecutor-in-the-irs-matter-is-inevitable/
The Insiders: A special
prosecutor in the IRS matter is
inevitable
This administration’s management of the Obama Internal Revenue Service scandal so far consists of a slow-walking, rolling disclosure of facts; equal parts equivocation, amnesia and indignation from IRS witnesses; deer-in-the-headlights non-responses by the White House press secretary; parsed, lawyerly statements from the president himself; and now one of the central key players is taking the Fifth. And all this comes from what the president claimed would be the “most transparent administration ever…”
If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later? The calculus inside the White House is how to best protect the president’s political interests. They have two options. They could delay the appointment and let more of the story develop, weather the ugly piecemeal disclosures, give the players time to get their stories straight and lawyer-up and hope Republicans continue their overreach, giving the whole affair a nutty partisan patina. Or, they could accelerate the appointment of a special prosecutor, thereby slowing the congressional inquiries and giving Jay Carney some relief from his daily embarrassing routine by supplying him with the escape hatch of not being allowed to comment on matters associated with the special prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. Not to mention, the White House all the while could blast the appointed counsel as a partisan ideologue à la the hatchet job that was done on Ken Starr.
Anyway, if the president is innocent, he will end up needing and wanting a special prosecutor sooner rather than later. If he and his White House already have too much to hide, then they must clam up, cry partisanship and hope their allies on the Hill and in the media have the stamina for the long, hard slog ahead.
- – - – -
My personal favorite of all the new revelations from the Obama IRS scandal is thatWhite House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough about the impending IRS inspector general report, but of course the White House chief of staff did not tell the president.
I sat in a White House chief of staff’s office every day for more than two years. Theonly reason the legal counsel would tell the chief of staff about an impending report or disclosure would be so the chief of staff could tell the president. The legal counsel would assume the chief of staff would know how and when to bring up the matter. The chief of staff would be expected to know if there were additional factors surrounding the issue that needed to be considered before the president was told, or whether or not others needed to be included in the conversation when the information was shared with the president. There are many valid reasons why the chief of staff would tell the president, but I can’t think of a reason why he and the legal counsel would both agree that this news nugget would go no further. It’s very odd.
The legal counsel would never assume that information shared with the chief of staff would not go to the president. In my experience, a legal counsel never would believe that there was information that was appropriate for the chief of staff to know but that was inappropriate for the president to know. Out of all the news that has emerged regarding the Obama IRS scandal, this is the most curious whopper I’ve heard so far. I can’t wait to hear the real story.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3
Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again.
The California Republican said Lerner’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.
“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”
Lerner triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 when she acknowledged that the agency wrongly targeted conservative groups applying for a tax exemption. Her lawyer told the House committee earlier this week that she would exercise her Fifth Amendment.
She appeared before Issa’s committee this morning under the order of a subpoena and surprised many by reading a strong statement to the panel.
“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 her from the committee room once it became clear she wouldn’t answer questions. As the hearing wound down this afternoon, Issa kept the panel in recess instead of adjourning. The move allows him to recall Lerner without issuing a new subpoena.
Legal experts are questioning whether Lerner’s Fifth Amendment protections dissolved once she began talking on Wednesday, as Issa argues.
“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983 and works on ethics issues.
He said the bigger problem for Lerner may be that she has made herself available to Congress in the past.
“The more serious question is whether any of her earlier congressional appearances before other committees constituted a waiver,” Brand said.
“That in turn may depend on whether any of those appearances were ‘compelled’ — that is, pursuant to a subpoena.”
He said the committee may ultimately pursue a contempt charge if Lerner continues to refuse to talk.
“Bottom line,” Brand said, “I think we will hear no more from Ms. Lerner” unless she is provided immunity.
Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee, said he didn’t think Lerner waived her fifth amendment protections.
“I don’t think her counsel would have allowed her to give a statement knowing that the very purpose of him being here — for her to assert her fifth amendment rights — would be damaged if she made a statement,” he told reporters.
Lerner’s decision to speak at all immediately triggered a dust-up among lawmakers who were confused about whether she gave up her Fifth Amendment protections when she made the opening statement.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor, said Lerner lost her rights the minute she started proclaiming her innocence, and that lawmakers therefore were entitled to question her. Cummings — himself a former lawyer — said congressional hearing rules were not like those of a courtroom.
During the incident, Issa did not flat-out say whether or not Lerner had indeed waived her rights but instead tried to coax her into staying by offering to narrow the scope of questions.
By the afternoon, Issa was taking a harder stand.
“The precedents are clear that this is not something you can turn on and turn off,” he told POLITICO. “She made testimony after she was sworn in, asserted her innocence in a number of areas, even answered questions asserting that a document was true … So she gave partial testimony and then tried to revoke that.”
He said he was not expecting that.
“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”
Plausible deniability .......
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013
Plausible Deniability
From Wikipedia: "Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge."
Now, as it applies to Obama, also from Wikipedia: "The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge." LINK
I work everyday with some very bright people. Many of them have a higher IQ than me and most of them are more "book smart." But sometimes it seems like I'm the only person out there who truly understands and sees just how thoroughly and irreparably corrupt this whole system is.
The people running this country in DC and NYC have made a complete mockery of freedom, free markets, Rule of Law and justice. There is no such thing as those principles as they apply to the United States. None. Gone. For anyone to have even a sliver of hope that I'm wrong is just sheer stupidity. There is no hope for this country. Period. It's in 5,000 years of history. It's not my idea or original view. It's just a fact. All you have to do is think about how you would operate if you were in their shoes and you could basically do whatever you wanted without fear of being arrested or prosecuted. That's it. I would do exactly what they are doing.
I can understand why people who have kids need to have some denial/hope, but it's just that. Nothing more. They are going to let Obama skate away from these scandals using the good old "plausible deniability." "They" refers to Congress and the public. And then he'll have to endure a week or two of intense criticism for being "too detached." And then it will be back to corruption as usual.
And I'm not just bashing Obama. There are plenty of instances during W's term and during Bubba's term that the same concept applies. It's not about Democrats vs. Republicans. There's really not much difference between the two parties in terms of the degree of corruption allowed, enabled and committed. It is "US" vs. "THEM" - with "THEM" being the people running DC and Wall Street. But then again, I guess it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is," is.
Now, as it applies to Obama, also from Wikipedia: "The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge." LINK
I work everyday with some very bright people. Many of them have a higher IQ than me and most of them are more "book smart." But sometimes it seems like I'm the only person out there who truly understands and sees just how thoroughly and irreparably corrupt this whole system is.
The people running this country in DC and NYC have made a complete mockery of freedom, free markets, Rule of Law and justice. There is no such thing as those principles as they apply to the United States. None. Gone. For anyone to have even a sliver of hope that I'm wrong is just sheer stupidity. There is no hope for this country. Period. It's in 5,000 years of history. It's not my idea or original view. It's just a fact. All you have to do is think about how you would operate if you were in their shoes and you could basically do whatever you wanted without fear of being arrested or prosecuted. That's it. I would do exactly what they are doing.
I can understand why people who have kids need to have some denial/hope, but it's just that. Nothing more. They are going to let Obama skate away from these scandals using the good old "plausible deniability." "They" refers to Congress and the public. And then he'll have to endure a week or two of intense criticism for being "too detached." And then it will be back to corruption as usual.
And I'm not just bashing Obama. There are plenty of instances during W's term and during Bubba's term that the same concept applies. It's not about Democrats vs. Republicans. There's really not much difference between the two parties in terms of the degree of corruption allowed, enabled and committed. It is "US" vs. "THEM" - with "THEM" being the people running DC and Wall Street. But then again, I guess it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is," is.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/21/lois-lerner-irs/
Lois Lerner of the IRS to take the Fifth
Now things are getting extra interesting.
The IRS official in charge of the division that scrutinized tax exempt organizations when the agency targeted Republicans will invoke her Fifth amendment right not to incriminate herself if forced to appear as scheduled Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee.
In a letter to the panel, her attorney asked that she be excused since she doesn’t plan to say anything. You can bet she won’t be excused even for a pee pee break.
Well.
This ratchets up the scandal for President Obama, make no mistake. Government officials are now taking the Fifth, like mobsters appearing at the Kefauver hearings. Average Americans are going to be smelling a lot of smoke and wondering intently about the fire.
A federal official, nominally in the employ of Barack Obama, will be all over the news Wednesday night taking the Fifth. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney keeps changing his story. Obama claims he don’t know nothin’ about nothin’.
Now the investigations will intensify. Reporters might even decide they want to try their hand at probing the guy they all voted for.
Once you begin looking hard, even at the innocent, it’s not too difficult to find something wrong. And this group is looking less and less innocent.
Lerner is being summoned to testify to explain why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress about the targeting, even after, according to the inspector general’s report, she knew all about it.
She’s not guilty of any crimes, her lawyer insists. So what exactly does she not want to talk about? Did anyone instruct her to begin her little Jihad against Tea Party groups?
Lerner is looking less like the apolitical naif she was initially portrayed to be. The Weekly Standard reports today that in a previous role as head of the FEC enforcement division in the 1990s, she went right after the Christian Coalition, trying to ascertain such things as who was praying for whom.
Now she’ll want to know if anyone’s praying for her.
AP / FOX / CBS SPY - GATE..... and Blogs too ?
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Holder_OK%27d_search_warrant_for_Fox_News_reporter%27s_private_emails%2C_official_says/26200/0/38/38/Y/M.html( Holder thrown under Bus by President Obama , as well as disclosure by unidentified law enforcement source that Holder approved search warrant for Fox News... )
Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says
May 23, 2013
Source: 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."
Read More...
WASHINGTON – Antiwar.com is taking the FBI to court.
The website’s founder and managing editor Eric Garris, along with longtime editorial director Justin Raimondo, filed a lawsuit in federal court today, demanding the release of records they believe the FBI is keeping on them and the 17-year-old online magazine.
Antiwar.com says this is one more example of post-9/11 government overreach, and a stark reminder that the First Amendment has been treated as little more than a speed bump on the road to a government surveillance state. The lawsuit is particularly timely, considering recent scandals in which the Department of Justice secretly seized months of journalists’ phone records at the Associated Press, and did the same and more to a FOX News reporter, while the IRS is acknowledging it singled out conservative groups that criticize the government for extra scrutiny.
Suddenly, the press is more aware than ever that the state has the ability to secretly monitor its activities, heretofore thought of as constitutionally protected from government interference and intimidation.
“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy, whether it’s AP or Antiwar.com,” said Julia Harumi Mass, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which is representing Antiwar.com in the case. “FBI surveillance of news organizations interferes with journalists’ ability to do their jobs as watchdogs that hold the government accountable.”
The suit was filed on Tuesday at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Both Garris and Raimondo live and work in the San Francisco Bay area.
According to the suit, the ACLU has made several futile attempts to obtain the FBI files since a reader alerted Garris and Raimondo to this lengthy FBI memo in 2011. The details in question begin at page 62 of the heavily redacted 94-page document. It’s clear from these documents, the suit alleges, that the FBI has files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommends further monitoring of the website in the form of opening a “preliminary investigation …to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security.”
“On one hand it seemed almost funny that we would be considered a threat to national security, but it’s very scary, because what we are engaging in is free speech, and free speech by ordinary citizens and journalists is now being considered a threat to national security and they don’t have to prove it because the government has the ability to suppress information and not disclose any of their activities – as witnessed with what is going on now at the AP and other things,” said Garris.
“The government’s attitude is they want to know all, but they want the public to know as little as possible.”
In response, the ACLU began filing requests in December 2011 under the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for any records the FBI was currently holding on Antiwar.com,which describes itself as a Libertarian-inspired project of the Randolph Bourne Institute. It was clear from reading the memo that Antiwar.com came under the radar in part for its mission, which is characterized as publishing a non-interventionist “online magazine and research tool designed to keep the American people and the world informed about the overseas plans of the American government.” [Full disclosure, this writer is a regular contributor].
While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America’s foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.
The website was also targeted, according to the FBI memo, for links it published to counter-terrorism watch lists (which were already in the public domain), and for the people who were visiting Antiwar.com and/or talking it up at rallies. The FBI noted at least two of Raimondo’s columns and wondered openly, “who are (Antiwar.com’s) contributors and what are the funds utilized for?” This, after acknowledging there was no evidence of any crime being plotted or committed.
“This illustrates the troubling, continuing efforts of the federal government to monitor protected speech activity without evidence or even allegation of criminal activity,” said Mass, who explained that there are specific prohibitions against such surveillance and record-keeping in the 1974 Privacy Act [5 U.S.C 552a(e)(7)].
After Raimondo wrote about the FBI memo in August 2011, which at the time, independent journalist Marcy Wheeler at EmptyWheel.net deemed a “troubling story,” Antiwar.com started losing donors, and according to the lawsuit, it was big time.
In October 2011, one of Antiwar.com’s major donors withdrew his financial support from Antiwar.com out of concern that the FBI would monitor him if he continued to provide, as he wished to do, financial support to Antiwar.com. Since then, three significant donors have also withdrawn financial support, citing their fear that FBI interest in Antiwar.com would lead to surveillance of the donors as a reason for withdrawing financial support. As a result, Antiwar.com has lost about $75,000 per year since 2011 in otherwise expected contributions.
Reached over the weekend, Wheeler, who routinely investigates and reports on the impact of post-9/11 government surveillance on civil liberties for EmptyWheel.net, voiced her concern about the apparent FBI surveillance of Antiwar.com and its far-reaching implications.
“It’s likely (the) FBI is hiding one or another things: Bush era investigations into the peace community that were improper to start with, and/or the degree to which First Amendment activities have become one reason to investigate completely innocent activity,” she said.
After a series of FOIA requests, amended requests and empty responses, Garris and Raimondo have “received no agency determination setting forth whether Defendant FBI intends to produce records or any basis for withholding them,” since the last request dated May 24, 2012. Taking it to court, Mass said, is the next step.
“Our clients are entitled to obtain records the FBI has gathered about them and their online magazine,” she said. “This is especially important because the FBI’s surveillance has impacted our clients’ ability to maintain support for their website and has impacted their editorial choices– exactly the type of harm the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.”
How it went down
The strange and unsettling story of Antiwar.com’s debut into the domestic War on Terror came in the summer of 2011, when a reader warned Garris and Raimondo that the website had been mentioned as a target of surveillance by the FBI in the batch of documents the reader said he obtained through a FOIA request and had subsequently posted on his blog.
The documents mostly concern a 2001 investigation of five Israeli nationals who were witnessed smiling and celebrating and taking pictures of the burning Twin Towers from a rooftop perch across the river from Manhattan in Union City, New Jersey, on 9/11. After witnesses called the police, the individuals, who all worked for a local moving company, were taken into custody and grilled by FBI and CIA for two months after it was deemed their work visas had expired, and there was a big wad of cash, box cutters and other items that raised red flags found in a search of their work van. Questions revolved around whether the Israelis were spies connected to the Israeli government, and whether they had foreknowledge of the tragic events.
The heavily redacted memo says the men were eventually deported back to Israel without charge, and the case closed. However, the FBI still had an interest in tracking evidence gleaned from the case and this is where Antiwar.com comes into the picture. Raimondo, in writing about the case of the five Israelis in 2002, linked to an American-generated terror watchlist (which had been published elsewhere on the Internet) that went out to Italian financial institutions and it included the name of the man who owned the New Jersey moving company in question.
It is not clear whether this sparked further monitoring of Antiwar.com, or whether Antiwar.com was already in the FBI’s sights. Interestingly, the memo states that the information attached to the memo as supporting material (none of which was available, aside from copies of two of Raimondo’s articles), was obtained in part through a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)request.
The FBI said it also searched the Web, as well as Lexis-Nexis, the Universal Index (FBI central records), the agency’s Electronic Case File, Department of Motor Vehicles and Dunn & Bradsheet (credit reports) for information on Antiwar.com and for “one or more individuals” working for the website.
Some of the things that can be discerned from those searches and were noted in the FBI memo:
– That Raimondo had been writing about the five Israelis and in his columns linked to at least three different terror watch lists (all found in the public domain).
–That Antiwar.com was cited in an article, the name of the author redacted, about U.S aid to Israel.
– That an article that listed Antiwar.com as a reference was handed out in 2002 at a “peaceful protest” at a British air base in the U.K.
– That a member of a domestic neo-Nazi group had “discussed a website, Antiwar.com” while encouraging fellow members at a conference to “educate themselves” about the Middle East conflict.
– That a special agent’s review of hard drives seized during an investigation of an unnamed subject, revealed that the subject had visited Antiwar.com between July 25, 2002 and June 15, 2003, “among many other websites.”
“There are several unanswered questions regarding www.antiwar.com,” reads the FBI memo. “It describes itself as a non-profit group that survives on generous contributions from its readers. Who are these contributors and what are the funds used for?”
The memo goes on to say that “many individuals worldwide do view this website including individuals who are currently under investigation and [two lines redacted].”
The unidentified agent writing the memo concludes, “it is recommended that ECAU (Electronic Communications Analysis Unit) further monitor the postings on the website … it is recommended that a PI (preliminary investigation) is opened to determine if [line redacted] have engaged in, or are engaging in, activities which constitute a threat to national security on behalf of a foreign power.”
This is the decisive point of the memo as it pertains to Antiwar.com: that Garris and Raimondo and Antiwar.com, for writing about a particularly sensitive subject and for linking to information that is already circulating around the Internet, may be a “threat to national security on behalf of a foreign power,” and therefore subject to secret surveillance. That would make any journalist, who say, linked a story to documents published by Wikileaks, which is currently under federal investigation, suspect too, surmised the plaintiffs.
“This sort of government activity is so chilling because it puts the fear of government at a higher level, and among the news media,” said Garris, noting the negative effect that federal leak investigations are already having on the free press. “Once the people aren’t able to get information, the government can, potentially, have unlimited power.”
According to Mass, the ACLU is filing a separate, administrative request to the FBI to find and further expunge any files it may have on Garris and Raimondo.
“The government,” concluded Mass, “cannot keep records about people’s exercise of free speech unless it is related to a criminal investigation.”
Update: Antiwar.com contacted the FBI for a statement for this story. A press official there declined, saying the agency could not comment on pending litigation.
The chief White House correspondent for NBC News, which largely has been enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s presidency, has delivered a stunning verdict on the latest moves to come out of the White House administration: It’s trying to criminalize journalism.
Wrote Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, “One gets the sense this White House has finally gone too far for even liberal media members.”
It happened with MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who noted that some people who definitely are not “tea party” types were expressing concern.
“We had Cokie Roberts and Al Hunt, Steve Rattner. And Cokie and Al, not tea party patriots, absolutely shocked as am I what this Justice Department did, not only to the AP, but now to Fox News,” Scarborough said during his interview with Chuck Todd of NBC.
“Tracing five lines inside Fox News’ Washington bureau. You add on top of that also people inside the White House talking about the Espionage Act against a reporter who did exactly what reporters have been doing for 200 years. It’s almost as if Eric Holder and Barack Obama never read the Pentagon’s Paper, Papers case. We’ve been having this fight for 200 years and they are talking about espionage?”
Todd responded, “What’s funny is I think candidate Obama if George Bush and Dick Cheney were doing this, imagine what candidate Obama would say. Candidate Obama would be unloading. There’d be a lot of Democrats that would be unloading on the administration if they were this and they were trying to crack down on leaks. This is, you can’t look at this and see it as anything other than an attempt to basically scare anybody from ever leaking anything ever again.”
He got to the point, “So they want to criminalize journalism. And that’s what it’s coming down, I mean, if you end up essentially criminalizing journalism or when it comes to reporting on the federal government, particularly on national security, and the only place they can, they think they technically can do that is on the issues of national security. What it’s going to do is the impact that we’ve heard, we heard the AP counsel say this over the weekend. It is going to make whistleblowers, and people that might leak, regular sources. You know, I’ve had different conversations with people over the last week who are sitting there not quite comfortable having certain conversations on the phone. I mean, it just completely, and maybe that’s the intent. I can’t think of any other intent of why they’re going about this in such a broad harassing sort of way.”
The comments are just the latest in one of the latest scandals for the Obama White House. Others are the IRS strategy to deliberately target conservative organizations with harassment, and the still-unanswered questions on the fatal al-Qaida-linked terror attack on Americans in Benghazi.
Earlier, a veteran reporter warned that members of the news media aren’t the only Americans who should be concerned about the privacy of their telephone conversations.
Gregory J. Millman of the Wall Street Journal, who says his telephone records were targeted by the IRS many years ago, writes that the communications of citizens could come to the attention of the government in a number of ways, including by getting a call from someone in whom the government has interest.
WND reported the Obama administration said it pursued AP’s records because a double agent in the war on terror was compromised by a story. However, the news wire’s reporting on the issue didn’t mention the agent.
It was CIA Director John Brennan, who then was President Obama’s terror adviser, who told members of Congress that the U.S. had “inside control” of the situation. Media then reported on the use of a double agent, according to a profile of the government’s justification for pursuing the reporters’ telephone records published in the Los Angeles Times.
Millman writes that his records were targeted in 1991 when he wrote a story citing an Internal Revenue Service memo.
However, he pointed out that when his records were taken by the IRS, he wasn’t the only one.
“That’s how they happened to scoop up the phone records of a home builder, a trade association of corporate finance officers, an old friend who happened to live in Washington, D.C., and the Alicia Patterson Foundation, which supports investigative journalism and which I had called to discuss a fellowship.”
Millman says none of those people or organizations “had anything to do with the story at issue, and none learned until long afterward that IRS investigators had been secretly riffling through records of all their phone calls.”
Millman explains he learned only by accident that the records had been given to the government.
It also was revealed that when the government started looking at the records for James Rosen, of
Fox News, it scooped up the records for a home where his parents live.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/sharyl-attkissons-computers-compromised-164456.html
Sharyl Attkisson's computers compromised
Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.
"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."
In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.
On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Dept. had searched Rosen's personal e-mails and tracked his visits to the State Dept. The court affadavit described Rosen as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" of his government source, presumably because he had solicited classified information from that source -- an argument that has been heavily criticized by other journalists.
Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about." Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.
Benghazi - GATE
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/benghazi-investigation-deepens-lawmakers-seek-interviews-13-officials-involved_728966.html
Send to Kindle
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/benghazi-investigation-deepens-lawmakers-seek-interviews-13-officials-involved_728966.html
Benghazi Investigation Deepens: Lawmakers Seek Interviews of 13 Officials Involved
5:16 PM, MAY 23, 2013 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
Send to Kindle
As the investigation into the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi intensifies, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are seeking to conduct transcribed interviews with thirteen top State Department officials in the coming weeks in order to learn more. Those named in the letter include a wide range of current and former State Department personnel, from senior advisers to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to mid-level career officials with responsibility for diplomatic security.
Among those officials: Jacob Sullivan, then deputy chief of staff and director of policy planning (and currently national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden); Victoria Nuland, then State Department spokesman; Raymond Maxwell, deputy assistant secretary of state for near east affairs; Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management; and Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security.
In a letter dated May 17, 2013, Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry to request formally that Kerry make these current and former State Department employees available. “The State Department employees whose testimony the Committee is seeking are critical fact witnesses who are positioned to shed light on what happened before, during and after the terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of four Americans in Benghazi.”
Issa reminded Kerry of his recent promise to run “an accountable and open State Department,” but noted that State’s “posture with respect to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attacks has not lived up to your commitment to ‘provide answers.’” The State Department, Issa wrote, “continues to limit the Committee’s access to relevant documents and witnesses.” The transcribed interviews are likely a first step towards requesting—or demanding—congressional testimony for several of those listed.
In addition to the thirteen State Department officials, Issa’s committee will conduct a transcribed interview on June 3, with Ambassador Thomas Pickering, one of the two primary authors of the Administrative Review Board report on the Benghazi attacks. That investigation, which failed to interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials with knowledge of the attacks, has not fared well under the additional scrutiny that it has attracted as more information on the attacks has become public. Sources tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the committee will likely seek to interview Admiral Mike Mullen, the other chief author of the ARB report, at some point in the near future.
Republicans on the committee hope that the next round of interviews will provide a better sense of the State Department’s role in providing security before the attacks, in the deliberations about a military response during the attacks and in the creation of the administration’s public narrative after the attacks.
Sullivan figured prominently in emails sent between senior Obama administration officials about the formulation of Benghazi talking points that were distributed to policymakers in Congress and the executive branch in the aftermath of the attacks. An email from a United Nations staffer to Ambassador Susan Rice, who would present the administration’s case on five Sunday talk shows on September 16, reported that Sullivan would work with officials from the intelligence community on those talking points. Subsequent emails between Sullivan and the U.N. staffer showed efforts to ensure that Rice was kept in the loop on those talking points.
In another email exchange, this one with State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, Sullivan reports that he will make edits to the talking points working with National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. Nuland had previously objected to some of the language in the talking points, on the grounds that members of Congress would be in a position to say things that she had not been allowed to say and that members might criticize the State Department for ignoring warnings about previous attacks.
Sullivan, in his email to Nuland, wrote: “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.” Moments later, Sullivan reiterated the point: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”
The emails contradict claims from Jay Carney and others that neither the White House nor the State Department played a significant role in editing the talking points. Several major edits were made to the talking points at or following a meeting of senior Obama administration officials during a secure video teleconference on Saturday morning.
Lawmakers want to ask Nuland about an email she sent expressing her concerns and those of her “building leadership” at the State Department to some of the contents of the talking points. In another email, Nuland notes that State Department leadership would be contacting the National Security Staff directly.
In testimony on January 23, Hillary Clinton claimed that the talking points were “an intelligence product” and that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into the talking points.” But her testimony is contradicted by an email from the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs, which reported: “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
Was Clinton involved in the revisions?
Beyond the talking points, lawmakers want answers to questions decisions on security before and during the attacks. Kennedy, who has testified previously about Benghazi, will no doubt face additional questions about his role in refusing to send the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi when the attack began. CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson reported this week that deployment of the FEST team to Benghazi was “ruled out from the start,” a “decision that became a source of internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.” An official who spoke to Attkisson said that Kennedy dismissed the idea. Maxwell, who was placed on “administrative leave” last winter, recently told Josh Rogin of the Daily Beast that he had nothing to do with decision making on Benghazi. “I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of our security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” Maxwell said. Maxwell’s punishment came after the release of the ARB report, and Rogin reports that Maxwell has never had access to the classified version of that report, where some of the State Department’s failures are laid out.
The same is true for Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who recently offered in congressional testimony a critical assessment of State Department leadership during and after the Benghazi attacks. Victoria Toensing, who is representing Hicks, says he has still not been allowed to review the classified version of the ARB report, despite his having been interviewed for it.
This lack of access to the classified ARB report is one of many questions Pickering will face when he is interviewed early next month. Why not let Hicks and others interviewed for the report see the final product?
In addition, lawmakers will press Pickering on a report that many consider to be a whitewash. Not only did the ARB team fail to interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they didn’t speak with lower-level personnel in the chain of decision making who had volunteered to speak with them. One of those officials, Mark Thompson, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary of state for counterterrorism, offered to share his experience from that evening with the ARB, but was never contacted for an interview.
Thompson was one of a handful of State Department officials who had a firsthand view of what was happening in Libya that night. When he learned that Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing and that others had sought safe haven, Thompson testified, he told his leadership at the State Department “that we needed to go forward and consider the deployment of the Foreign Emergency Support Team.”
“I notified the White House,” Thompson continued. “They indicated that meetings had already taken place that evening” and that FEST would not be deployed.
Did the ARB leadership believe this testimony wasn’t relevant to their investigation? Or was it inconvenient to the conclusion they wanted to reach?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/21/ap-u-s-officials-have-identified-five-benghazi-suspects-but-wont-seize-them-because-theres-not-enough-evidence-to-prosecute-yet/
AP: U.S. officials have identified five Benghazi suspects — but won’t seize them because there’snot enough evidence to prosecute yet
POSTED AT 4:01 PM ON MAY 21, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Via the Right Sphere. Am I reading this correctly? President Dronestrike, who’s been known to liquidate people from the air in places like Pakistan with no more evidence than that their movements show the “signature” of a terrorist, now won’t go in and grab five jihadis whom the feds have reason to believe murdered a U.S. ambassador?
What?
U.S. officials say they have identified five men they believe might be behind the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists — but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.So the officials say the men remain at large while the FBI gathers more evidence. The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House’s aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and toward trying them as criminals in a civilian justice system.
First things first: How much do you suppose the AP enjoyed kneeing Obama in the groin by publishing this after finding out that the DOJ was peeking at their phone records? Imagine the subpoenas being prepared at this very moment to find out who leaked them this scoop on Benghazi.
Not for a minute do I believe that O really wants these guys tried in federal court. His whole counterterror M.O. has been to kill suspected jihadis on sight precisely so that he doesn’t have to deal with the headache of housing and trying them. If he sends in the SEALs to grab the five and they succeed, suddenly Gitmo and military tribunals are back front and center and the headache starts anew. More than that, he risks a second Benghazi-related humiliation if any of them go to federal court and are acquitted. There’s no reason to take that risk when he can check the “rule of law”/civilian trial box for his base by prosecuting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in Massachusetts. Also, giving the Benghazi five a soapbox by trying them in federal court hands their lawyers an opportunity to conduct discovery and try to turn the trial into a referendum on the feds’ handling of security in Benghazi, which would only feed the embarrassment Obama and the State Department have already suffered for last September’s lapse. According to polling, the American public is just fine with drone strikes on suspected terrorists abroad, and no doubt would be especially understanding of strikes aimed at people suspected of killing a U.S. ambassador. The fact that O’s allegedly willing to ignore all that and demand criminal procedures suggests something else is up.
Theory: The Libyan government is resisting U.S. officials’ requests to either authorize a drone strike or let special forces hit the ground to round these people up. Acquiescing in a heavy-handed American military action against the locals could be dangerous for a weak regime that’s surrounded (sometimes literally) by jihadists and various militias. If O ignores their warnings and attacks the Benghazi five anyway, and the government there is consequently destabilized, he’ll take all kinds of heat for that. If he holds off at their request and blames them for obstructing him via leaks to the media, he’ll take all kinds of heat for not insisting upon justice for the murderers of an American diplomat. So, possibly, he’s chosen the middle course — hold off on attacking but claim it’s because he’s building a criminal case, which at least promises future action. Or maybe I’m overthinking this and The One really has gone cuckoo for federal trials. We’ll know the next time he drops a bomb on someone in Yemen, won’t we?
Exit question: The timing of his big Gitmo/drone speech on Thursday just got a lot more interesting, didn’t it?
Update: Yep.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/21/carney-asking-about-sebelius-fundraising-for-obamacare-a-lot-like-being-a-birther/
Carney: Asking about Sebelius fundraising for ObamaCare a lot like being a birther, or something
POSTED AT 3:21 PM ON MAY 21, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
You know, a White House that just got exposed for spying on journalists probably should be doing some bridge-rebuilding, especially for an administration who needs a friendly media as much as this one does. What’s the worst possible way to get back in the media’s good graces? Accusing them of being conspiracy nuts for asking about Kathleen Sebelius’ fundraising for ObamaCare, starting with CBS’ Major Garrett, who just got done fronting the Benghazi e-mail defense demolished by Glenn Kessler today.
Thanks bunches, Major:
Struggling with a reporter about which Republican concerns are and are not legitimate, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that if reporters are going to ask about every issue, they should include President Obama’s birth certificate. …Garrett followed up and asked if questions related to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s fundraising for the Affordable Care Act were also legitimate. Carney grew irritated and responded by referencing conspiracy theories about the president’s birthplace.“You know, we could go down the list of questions — we could say, what about the president’s birth certificate? Were that — was that legitimate?” Carney responded.
I guess the media is discovering how the White House treats Republicans who disagree with them. Welcome to the party, pal!
Twitchy has a few of the reactions in the aftermath, including from the suddenly-nutcasey media:
