Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

If this were any other president, the media would already have the impeachment stories rolling.

They've portrayed him as a wunderkind for so long, it may be impossible for them to see the real scumbag behind the curtain.

reply to post by Indigo5

they aren't challenging the press's rights to report the leak...they are challenging the CIA Leakers right to leak it.

I wish more people grasped this concept.

Unfortunately, it has been turned into a partisan issue.

reply to post by thesungod


Nope -- it's wrong and there should be a full independent investigation, spearheaded by someone the American people can trust (and NOT by Congress). Too bad such a person no longer exists.

reply to post by flobot


Apparently you didn't watch the press conference just now. Cause the entire press corps disagree with both of you.

Obama's incompetence and arrogance far exceeds Bush's incompetence and arrogance--yet the media loves Obama....excessive arrogance (ala Nixon) will be his demise (I hope)

I can't help but think that this is some kind of payback to the CIA for not helping to cover Obama and Clinton's butt on Benghazi.

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by Indigo5

 

They tapped the phone companies records of multiple AP reporters, not CIA operatives. Cell phones, home phones, office phones AND their emails (not necessarily a phone company record, but could be.) If they were investigating the CIA they'd have tapped the phone companies records of CIA agents involved in the operation in question.

That seems a strange claim? Of course the CIA tracks agents phone activities. The problem here is that the actual head of the CIA was interviewed by the FBI and asked if he was the source of the leak. So they are begining with a wide net...are they going to ask the CIA for all thier phone records? And trust them? They just asked the head of the CIA if he was the leak! The obvious course is to start with the reporters that leaked the story and look at thier phone logs during that time. And again they didn't serve the AP with a warrant, the records originated with Telecom providers, so they aren't challenging the APs right to report the leak, just the CIA leakers right to leak it.

The article was specific that the telecomm records were supeoned to find this leaker..

BOMBSHELL: Al-Qaeda Infiltrator was Working for Brits not CIA, Cover Blown for Election Year Politics
pjmedia.com...

So what is confusing you here?

reply to post by Indigo5


You're right. The AP even acknowledged that the WH knew they were going to publish the story, but just asked them to hold off for several days before doing so.

Originally posted by thesungod
If they were investigating the CIA they'd have tapped the phone companies records of CIA agents involved in the operation in question.

No offense...but you should read up on it...the AP itself is the one explaining this is the FBI hunting for a leaker within the CIA...not going after the AP. And the idea that the FBI can easily pull CIA agents phone records is silly. They would first have to ask the CIA (the ones they are investigating) for a complete list of it's agents and associated phone/email records etc. etc. The CIA is the target of the investigation.

the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided 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.

AP article

reply to post by Indigo5


You obviously didn't watch the press conference just now. Everyone from Chuck Todd over at NBC to Wendell Goaler at Fox disagree with you.

I'm not confused and neither are they. Your just marching the party line.

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You obviously didn't watch the press conference just now. Everyone from Chuck Todd over at NBC to Wendell Goaler at Fox disagree with you.

I'm not confused and neither are they. Your just marching the party line.

No...I am actually READING and RESEARCHING ...not looking for "opinion" in place of "facts" and talking heads on television telling me what to think or feel doesn't change the facts.

Come back with some kind of factual support for what you are claiming or what the bobble heads on television are telling people to "feel" and we can discuss.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You're right. The AP even acknowledged that the WH knew they were going to publish the story, but just asked them to hold off for several days before doing so.

Yah...They stall to see if they can button it down...How much info. does the press have...who is the leak...can we get them to take back the story...and when all else fails appeal to national security interests and beg...but at the end of the day, the first amendment rules...they likely spent those few days of delay advising the British government to pull thier undercover agents before the story broke...get them out of harms way...otherwise there would have been a spat of beheadings.

I watched the entire press conference, but I just don't see what some people are talking about myself.

Just like any other group, reporters stick together. They aren't scared that the government is going after them, they are scared that the government is actually going after leakers and that will take away some of their sources.

It's not illegal to report leaked information, but it is illegal to leak that information. Reporters are just mad that their sources who are releasing illegal information are being brought to justice. This will result in future people thinking about leaking information from thinking twice about it.

In the end, reporters are mad that their toys that were given to them illegally are being taken away from them even though they aren't directly in trouble themselves.

reply to post by thesungod


And...Folks are just now starting to scratch thier heads about the partisan hypocrasy...

TIME one hour ago..

“The First Amendment is first for a reason,” added Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. “If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.”

The explanation might be, in part, the angry cries from Republican members of Congress over the Associated Press reporting that appears to have triggered the Justice Department probe.

In May 2012, the AP described how a double agent had infiltrated al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen and neutralized a plot to bomb an airliner. Multiple Republicans insisted at the time that the leak might constitute a criminal case and demanded a tough FBI investigation.

Their anger was largely directed at the alleged leakers, unlike the cries of “treason” directed at the New York Times when the paper published sensitive information about Bush-era anti-terror surveillance.

Even so, conservatives are now in the odd position of implicitly defending the media’s rights against the imperative of national security secrecy, a cause that didn’t interest them much when the FBI sought media phone records during the Bush years.

swampland.time.com...

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thesungod
If they were investigating the CIA they'd have tapped the phone companies records of CIA agents involved in the operation in question.

No offense...but you should read up on it...the AP itself is the one explaining this is the FBI hunting for a leaker within the CIA...not going after the AP. And the idea that the FBI can easily pull CIA agents phone records is silly. They would first have to ask the CIA (the ones they are investigating) for a complete list of it's agents and associated phone/email records etc. etc. The CIA is the target of the investigation.

the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided 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.

AP article

Actually you are dead wrong. Security Clearances even for the CIA are ran through the FBI. The FBI has investigated the CIA several times over the years and has background file for EVERYONE approved to work over there. Warrants and such are required yes, but only for civilian agencies. Doesn't work that way between government branchs. They simply make records requests and if it fits the share guideline they share. If they refuse the share the FBI will simply get a seizure order from congress or the President. And don't even get me started on the DHS's powers.

If you refuse to cooperate they pull your clearance, kick you out under those grounds. The FBI and DHS are pretty much the end all be all within the States borders. You don't have any experience working in the Fed do you?

They got the records for over 100 reporters at the AP from multiple offices across the country. This is a huge over reach. Why not just target the office that published the story? Also why get their entire families phone records via every phone line listed on an account? They didn't call reporter A's son, who then told his parent, who then published the story. That is crazy.

reply to post by thesungod


It's my understanding that the probe was for reporters in New York, Washington DC, Hartford, Connecticut and the AP reporters that covered Congress.

I wonder if this might be something someone in Congress leaked from an Intelligence Committee meeting or something.

Maybe this has always happened in America....just not with the same audacity.

reply to post by Indigo5


Even Harry Reid is denouncing the seizure of AP records now.

Wait for the story it'll appear soon.

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by flobot

 

Apparently you didn't watch the press conference just now. Cause the entire press corps disagree with both of you.

edit on 14-5-2013 by thesungod because: (no reason given)

I watched most of the press conference.

I didn't hear any of the press claim that they were being targeted themselves.

reply to post by thesungod


Tell me again what story we're looking for? If we're talking about the monitoring of actual phone conversations, yesterday the AP stated this...

None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

www.ap.org...

Is the AP changing their story on that now?