PDA

View Full Version : Obama Government taps AP reporters' phones.....illegally


petegz28
05-13-2013, 07:44 PM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130513/DA68MMQ82.html

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 outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.

In all, the government seized the 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 where 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. Officials have previously said in public testimony that 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. 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.

In the letter notifying the AP, which was 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 providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the investigative House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said on CNN, "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the use of subpoenas for a broad swath of records has a chilling effect both on journalists and whistleblowers who want to reveal government wrongdoing. "The attorney general must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again," said Laura Murphy, the director of ACLU's Washington legislative office.

Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of 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 through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations." But he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an email.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only 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 might have 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 then they 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 both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously 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 officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration 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 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 wrote.

He also defended the White House decision to discuss the plot 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.

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 08:15 PM
Government taps AP reporters' phones.....illegally


Even when you manage to actually post a story that might be true, you manage to muck it up with a false thread title.

DaveNull
05-13-2013, 08:24 PM
Can we fire Eric Holder yet?

HonestChieffan
05-13-2013, 08:29 PM
No one cares about this. More RWNJ bullshit.

KCNitwit

Bump
05-13-2013, 08:58 PM
No one cares about this. More RWNJ bullshit.

KCNitwit

Everything in 'Murica is perfect! ITS PERFECT DAMN YOU

USA USA USA!!!!

blaise
05-13-2013, 08:58 PM
"AP is racist."

- Thatguy

petegz28
05-13-2013, 09:01 PM
Even when you manage to actually post a story that might be true, you manage to muck it up with a false thread title.

might be true???

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 09:06 PM
might be true???

Funny you didn't question me saying your thread title is false. Did you do that on purpose or you just can't help it?

petegz28
05-13-2013, 09:08 PM
Funny you didn't question me saying your thread title is false. Did you do that on purpose or you just can't help it?

Yeah, you're right....no need for a warrant to tap the phones over at AP.

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 09:35 PM
Yeah, you're right....no need for a warrant to tap the phones over at AP.

Did they tap the phones?

petegz28
05-13-2013, 09:55 PM
Did they tap the phones?

You know, you are the kind of guy that said "everything is fine!!!!" as the Nazi's were marching behind Hitler to war.


I don't think there is any law this Admin. could break that you wouldn't defend.

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 09:59 PM
You know, you are the kind of guy that said "everything is fine!!!!" as the Nazi's were marching behind Hitler to war.


I don't think there is any law this Admin. could break that you wouldn't defend.

Yeah, ok. You're the kind of guy who says they tapped the phones when they didn't tap the phones. Isn't the actual story good enough for you? Why make up additional stuff?

ClevelandBronco
05-13-2013, 10:01 PM
Welcome to the party, AP, but I don't give a shit. And neither did you until it was your phone records. **** you.

petegz28
05-13-2013, 10:09 PM
Welcome to the party, AP, but I don't give a shit. And neither did you until it was your phone records. **** you.

I agree with the sentiment but I, unlike the AP, care when the government breaks the law, regardless.

Taco John
05-13-2013, 10:16 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Obama will be able to make his full term. Maddow was racing ahead of impeachment talk tonight as if to head it off at the pass. Before seeing that, I wouldn't have thought much about it happening, but when MSNBC is that worried about it, I have to wonder. And now with this revelation - wow. This one and the IRS one are both biggies. These are the kinds of things you impeach presidents over.

Dylan
05-13-2013, 10:18 PM
‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’
President Barack Obama, October 2010.


"You know the difference between a liberal and a cannibal? A cannibal eats only his enemies."
President Lyndon B. Johnson

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 10:21 PM
I agree with the sentiment but I, unlike the AP, care when the government breaks the law, regardless.

How did you determine that a law was broken?

Aries Walker
05-13-2013, 10:30 PM
It looks to me like the Justice Department got the records of who in the AP called whom, but I don't see any mention of any wiretaps, or recordings of any conversations changing hands (or even being made in the first place). I also don't see anything signifying that a law had been broken.

Unless there's more to this story, I'm not impressed.

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 10:32 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Obama will be able to make his full term. Maddow was racing ahead of impeachment talk tonight as if to head it off at the pass. Before seeing that, I wouldn't have thought much about it happening, but when MSNBC is that worried about it, I have to wonder. And now with this revelation - wow. This one and the IRS one are both biggies. These are the kinds of things you impeach presidents over.

So far, we've impeached presidents over a disputed removal of an administration officer and lying about a BJ. Not sure which one these are like, but I think you probably need to actually show improper behavior and involvement of the president.

cosmo20002
05-13-2013, 10:35 PM
It looks to me like the Justice Department got the records of who in the AP called whom, but I don't see any mention of any wiretaps, or recordings of any conversations changing hands (or even being made in the first place). I also don't see anything signifying that a law had been broken.

Unless there's more to this story, I'm not impressed.

This, this and this.

stonedstooge
05-13-2013, 10:45 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Obama will be able to make his full term. Maddow was racing ahead of impeachment talk tonight as if to head it off at the pass. Before seeing that, I wouldn't have thought much about it happening, but when MSNBC is that worried about it, I have to wonder. And now with this revelation - wow. This one and the IRS one are both biggies. These are the kinds of things you impeach presidents over.

Senate wouldn't

LiveSteam
05-13-2013, 10:57 PM
Can you imagine what black America would do,if Obama was to be kicked out of the White House?










Me either

fan4ever
05-13-2013, 11:31 PM
Can you imagine what black America would do,if Obama was to be kicked out of the White House?

Me either

I can. I imagine they'd be much better off.

Dylan
05-14-2013, 12:32 AM
Many in the mainstream media were and are complicit in the attack of the Second Amendment. So it serves them right to get caught up in a fight for their First Amendment rights.

Dylan
05-14-2013, 12:37 AM
Well one thing we all know - Obama says he knows nothing at all about secret seizure of telephone records of AP's journalists. The first time he heard about it was when we the people did. He is the most ‘no nothing’ president in the history of the United States.

As for Eric Holder, he will blame some low level bureaucrat, say he had no knowledge it was going on. There is no there there.

Fairplay
05-14-2013, 12:50 AM
Well one thing we all know - Obama says he knows nothing at all about secret seizure of telephone records of AP's journalists. The first time he heard about it was when we the people did. He is the most ‘no nothing’ president in the history of the United States.

As for Eric Holder, he will blame some low level bureaucrat, say he had no knowledge it was going on. There is no there there.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/see%20no%20evil" target="_blank"><img src="http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt246/mduckw01/3monkeys.jpg" border="0" alt="see no evil photo: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil 3monkeys.jpg"/></a>

Fairplay
05-14-2013, 12:59 AM
Can you imagine what black America would do,if Obama was to be kicked out of the White House?




Community organizers get the urban areas to reenact the L.A. riots in major cities through out the U.S.

Occupy Wall Street losers and bums protest the move also, the late 60's era comes back to life.

mikey23545
05-14-2013, 01:07 AM
This country is teetering on the edge of an abyss unlike any we have seen the like of before...

blaise
05-14-2013, 04:44 AM
It's not that a law was broken, it's that during the Bush years had something like this happened we would have heard the left screeching about the police state we're in and how sinister Republicans don't respect journalists and freedoms they require.
Instead it's, "Meh. So?" from a lot of them now that Obama's doing it. Although it does seem to be bothering some. You even have Obama aplogists like the Huff Post talking about it, and they'd overlook almost as much as cosmo.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 06:39 AM
I'm starting to wonder if Obama will be able to make his full term. Maddow was racing ahead of impeachment talk tonight as if to head it off at the pass. Before seeing that, I wouldn't have thought much about it happening, but when MSNBC is that worried about it, I have to wonder. And now with this revelation - wow. This one and the IRS one are both biggies. These are the kinds of things you impeach presidents over.


:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 06:39 AM
This country is teetering on the edge of an abyss unlike any we have seen the like of before...


If you think this, that's only because you have no idea how J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 06:41 AM
Many in the mainstream media were and are complicit in the attack of the Second Amendment. So it serves them right to get caught up in a fight for their First Amendment rights.


An "attack" on the Second Amendment? Was that trying to pass a bill that was similar to a law that used to be on the books, and which was supported by multiple former Presidents (including Republicans)?

patteeu
05-14-2013, 06:46 AM
I have to agree with cosmo that the title is misleading. The story doesn't support the idea that reporters' phones were tapped or that what the government did was illegal. It was unprecedented though.

If it weren't for the fact that the White House has no problem leaking classified info when it's politically expedient, I might be more sympathetic with an effort to unmask leakers. But even then, I'm not sure a broad sweep of phone records is justified, even if it turns out to be legal.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 06:46 AM
So let me get this straight, because this is important. It's the end of teh world according to some, or at least a potentially impeachable offense for Obama.

1. The Justice Department issued a subpoena and got phone records for some AP offices for two months. TWO MONTHS.

2. The reason we know this is because the Justice Department ITSELF sent a nice letter informing the AP of this fact.

3. Presumably, the Justice Department followed all of its internal rules regarding obtaining these records, which according to the article are fairly strict.

4. The Justice Department did NOT (so far as we know) tap any phones. You know, actually LISTEN to any conversation held by a reporter.

Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of 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 through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations." But he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an email.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only 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 might have taken to get information in the case.


I agree that it's always concerning when government leans heavily on the media, but I gotta say I don't quite see all this as the end of Western Civilization...

patteeu
05-14-2013, 06:47 AM
It's not that a law was broken, it's that during the Bush years had something like this happened we would have heard the left screeching about the police state we're in and how sinister Republicans don't respect journalists and freedoms they require.
Instead it's, "Meh. So?" from a lot of them now that Obama's doing it. Although it does seem to be bothering some. You even have Obama aplogists like the Huff Post talking about it, and they'd overlook almost as much as cosmo.

I agree with this. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 06:47 AM
It was unprecedented though.


Do we know that? I skimmed the article but didn't see that.

I note, of course, that pretty much nothing is unprecedent if one wants to include all the stuff Hoover did...

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 06:48 AM
It's not that a law was broken, it's that during the Bush years had something like this happened we would have heard the left screeching about the police state we're in and how sinister Republicans don't respect journalists and freedoms they require.
Instead it's, "Meh. So?" from a lot of them now that Obama's doing it. Although it does seem to be bothering some. You even have Obama aplogists like the Huff Post talking about it, and they'd overlook almost as much as cosmo.

I agree with this. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.


I agree, though the hypocrisy lives on both sides of the aisle...

patteeu
05-14-2013, 06:50 AM
Do we know that? I skimmed the article but didn't see that.

I note, of course, that pretty much nothing is unprecedent if one wants to include all the stuff Hoover did...

That's what the AP is reporting. :)

blaise
05-14-2013, 07:10 AM
I agree, though the hypocrisy lives on both sides of the aisle...

Yes, just flip the reactions based on the President, generally.

mikey23545
05-14-2013, 08:04 AM
My God, one scandal after another people shrug and say "Oh, that's just politics, Old Man!"...

I can't believe how much people are manufacturing excuses for this habitually criminal administration...

Can you imagine if the Nixon administration was caught seizing AP phone records? If Bush was caught going to bed, being unavailable, while an American ambassador was begging for help? Hell, if any Republican president was caught sending the IRS brownshirts after political opponents?

This nation has been drugged into a coma by welfare checks, free cell phones, and government-bought steaks...

stevieray
05-14-2013, 08:04 AM
I agree, though the hypocrisy lives on both sides of the aisle...

....this isn't an excuse.

NewChief
05-14-2013, 08:11 AM
Hell, if any Republican president was caught sending the IRS brownshirts after political opponents?




O rly?

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

When the IRS targeted liberals
Under George W. Bush, it went after the NAACP, Greenpeace and even a liberal church
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD
1K 5
more

TOPICS: IRS, GEORGE W. BUSH, NONPROFITS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, EDITOR'S PICKS, BUSINESS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS


(Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)
While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.

And while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

Meanwhile, Citizens for Ethics in Washington filed two ethics complaints against a church in Minnesota. “You know we can’t publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate, but I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann,” pastor Mac Hammond of the Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota said in 2006 before welcoming her to the church. The IRS opened an audit into the church, but it went nowhere after the church appealed the audit on a technicality.

And it wasn’t just churches. In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP, auditing the nation’s oldest civil rights group after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization. “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you,” then-chairman Julian Bond said. “It’s pretty obvious that the complainant was someone who doesn’t believe George Bush should be criticized, and it’s obvious of their response that the IRS believes this, too.”

In a letter to the IRS, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel, Pete Stark and John Conyers wrote: “It is obvious that the timing of this IRS examination is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the members of the NAACP, and the communities the organization represents, in their get-out-the-vote effort nationwide.”

Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later.

As the Journal reporter, Steve Stecklow, later said in an interview, “This comes against a backdrop where a number of conservative groups have been attacking nonprofits and NGOs over their tax-exempt status. There have been hearings on Capitol Hill. There have been a number of conservative groups in Washington who have been quite critical.”

Indeed, the year before that, the Senate held a hearing on nonprofits’ political activity. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, the then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the IRS needed better enforcement, but also “legislative changes” to better define the lines between politics and social welfare, since they had not been updated in “a generation.” Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the IRS has defined 501(c)4′s sufficiently to this day, leaving the door open for IRS auditors to make up their own, discriminatory rules.

Those cases mostly involved 501(c)3 organizations, which live in a different section of the tax code for real charities like hospitals and schools. The rules are much stronger and better developed for (c)3′s, in part because they’ve been around longer. But with “social welfare” (c)4 groups, the kind of political activity we saw in 2010 and 2012 is so unprecedented that you get cases like Emerge America, a progressive nonprofit that trains Democratic female candidates for public office. The group has chapters across the country, but in 2011, chapters in Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada were denied 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. Leaders called the situation “bizarre” because in the five years Nevada had waited for approval, the Kentucky chapter was approved, only for the other three to be denied.

A former IRS official told the New York Times that probably meant the applications were sent to different offices, which use slightly different standards. Different offices within the same organization that are supposed to impose the exact same rules in a consistent manner have such uneven conceptions of where to draw the line at a political group, that they can approve one organization and then deny its twin in a different state.

All of these stories suggest that while concern with the IRS posture toward conservative groups now may be merited, to fully understand the situation requires a bit of context and history.



That being said, I'm with you that I'm fed up with this administration. I'm sure that you were raising the alarm back during the Bush administration as well, though! :thumb:

Xanathol
05-14-2013, 08:37 AM
That article is by Salon...

mikey23545
05-14-2013, 09:15 AM
O rly?

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.

O rly?

Even the Communist Party Organ LA Times said :

" The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections."

They obviously violated the law, and still they just dropped the investigation and allowed them to keep their tax exempt status.

Where's the controversy?


Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later.

So this is a story about the IRS opening an investigation, and then closing it?

THAT'S a scandal?!?!?


That being said, I'm with you that I'm fed up with this administration. I'm sure that you were raising the alarm back during the Bush administration as well, though! :thumb:

You're really digging now...Keep trying and you may come out in China...Red China...

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 09:18 AM
....this isn't an excuse.


I didn't say it was. The IRS thing hasn't been fully vetted out yet, but there are some people that need to be fired, I have no doubt of that.

This AP thing -- I don't have enough info on it yet to determine whether it falls closer to the "unfortunate but justified" end of the spectrum or the "JFC they shouldn't be allowed to do that" end.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 09:20 AM
You're really digging now...Keep trying and you may come out in China...Red China...

China's not really red anymore. Just sayin'

Comrade Crapski
05-14-2013, 09:25 AM
Oh look everybody, here comes the biggest stooge out from under his rock to carry Barry's piss bucket.

I agree, though the hypocrisy lives on both sides of the aisle...

mikey23545
05-14-2013, 09:25 AM
China's not really red anymore. Just sayin'

True, but America has volunteered to take its place...

Just sayin'...

petegz28
05-14-2013, 09:26 AM
China's not as red anymore. Just sayin'

FYP

Comrade Crapski
05-14-2013, 09:26 AM
China's not really red anymore. Just sayin'

yeah but you sure are.

jiveturkey
05-14-2013, 09:36 AM
Even if it's not illegal the other activities associated with this administration lately just go to show how worthless 2nd terms are. Even if it's just a perception issue.

How about 1 6 year term for the President?

Can anyone point to a highly successful 2nd term?

patteeu
05-14-2013, 09:37 AM
Even if it's not illegal the other activities associated with this administration lately just go to show how worthless 2nd terms are. Even if it's just a perception issue.

How about 1 6 year term for the President?

Can anyone point to a highly successful 2nd term?

Are you sure that wouldn't just make every term like a 2nd term?

Comrade Crapski
05-14-2013, 09:40 AM
Think of all the dirt Barry must now have on his AP stooges. They can't go off the reservation even if they wanted too.

jiveturkey
05-14-2013, 09:41 AM
Are you sure that wouldn't just make every term like a 2nd term?

I never thought about that but you might be right. :banghead:

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 10:04 AM
Even if it's not illegal the other activities associated with this administration lately just go to show how worthless 2nd terms are. Even if it's just a perception issue.

How about 1 6 year term for the President?

Can anyone point to a highly successful 2nd term?

I understand your point, but with 1-term limit, they would just be a lame duck from day 1.

mikey23545
05-14-2013, 10:25 AM
I understand your point, but with 1-term limit, they would just be a lame duck from day 1.

I'm sure your little man is dreaming of one 40 year term, isn't he?

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 10:27 AM
I'm sure your little man is dreaming of one 40 year term, isn't he?

My "little man"? You're going to have to be more specific.

patteeu
05-14-2013, 10:34 AM
My "little man"? You're going to have to be more specific.

Your little all-politics-all-the-time, socialist-leaning, racially-dividing, islamist-appeasing, power-abusing, gitmo-not-closing, iraq-gains-losing, in-over-his-head man. Better? :)

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 10:41 AM
Your little all-politics-all-the-time, socialist-leaning, racially-dividing, islamist-appeasing, power-abusing, gitmo-not-closing, iraq-gains-losing, in-over-his-head man. Better? :)

Yeah...not really ringing a bell.

The Gitmo reference probably means you are talking about Obama, but none of those other descriptions are true. Anyway, mickey said 'my little man' was dreaming of one 40 year term, which doesn't really make sense considering he is already in a 2nd term.

Taco John
05-14-2013, 11:46 AM
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

If I were a betting man, your reaction to the introduction of the idea that Clinton could be impeached would have probably been the same as this, no?

I would say that the scandals that are mounting right now are much more impeachable than anything Clinton did. I'm not even saying that he *is* going to be impeached. I'm just saying that it looks like something that could reasonably happen.

Tiger's Fan
05-14-2013, 12:57 PM
An "attack" on the Second Amendment? Was that trying to pass a bill that was similar to a law that used to be on the books, and which was supported by multiple former Presidents (including Republicans)?

The fact that you think the media should be 'trying' to pass any bill is all anyone needs to know about you.

Comrade Crapski
05-14-2013, 01:14 PM
If I were a betting man, your reaction to the introduction of the idea that Clinton could be impeached would have probably been the same as this, no?

I would say that the scandals that are mounting right now are much more impeachable than anything Clinton did. I'm not even saying that he *is* going to be impeached. I'm just saying that it looks like something that could reasonably happen.

Barry could be videotaped in flagrante delicto blowing a 13 year old boy, and amnorix would demand the photographer be arrested and put in jail for inciting a riot in the Cairo Bazaar and compromising national security.

RedNeckRaider
05-14-2013, 02:30 PM
Barry could be videotaped in flagrante delicto blowing a 13 year old boy, and amnorix would demand the photographer be arrested and put in jail for inciting a riot in the Cairo Bazaar and compromising national security.

And have the family arrested for raising a child that would allow that to happen~

HonestChieffan
05-14-2013, 02:59 PM
On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Department of Justice has been the subject of scandals ranging from Fast and Furious to pulling phone records of Associated Press editors and reporters, said that he had “recused” himself last year from a federal probe that led to the AP records pull.

Holder’s staff instead blamed Deputy Attorney General James Cole, according to Politico. Politico – the most frequent leak outlet for the Obama administration — quoted an unnamed official blaming Cole: “As the attorney general testified in June 2012, he was interviewed by the FBI in connection with the investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” the official said. “To avoid any potential appearance of a conflict of interest, the Attorney General recused himself from this matter.”


Amazing.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 03:03 PM
If I were a betting man, your reaction to the introduction of the idea that Clinton could be impeached would have probably been the same as this, no?


Yes, it was (not would have, was). That impeachment was a political farce, and they couldn't even get a majority in the Senate that had a Republican majority.

I would say that the scandals that are mounting right now are much more impeachable than anything Clinton did. I'm not even saying that he *is* going to be impeached. I'm just saying that it looks like something that could reasonably happen.

Perhaps, but if so it's only because our political system is so woefully broken.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 03:04 PM
The fact that you think the media should be 'trying' to pass any bill is all anyone needs to know about you.


errr...didn't say the MEDIA was trying to pass that bill.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 03:05 PM
Barry could be videotaped in flagrante delicto blowing a 13 year old boy, and amnorix would demand the photographer be arrested and put in jail for inciting a riot in the Cairo Bazaar and compromising national security.


Stop projecting your sexual fantasies onto the President, k, thanks.

Xanathol
05-14-2013, 03:10 PM
Yes, it was (not would have, was). That impeachment was a political farceHe lied under oath... if that is your definition of 'farce', then there is no help for you.

The_Grand_Illusion
05-14-2013, 03:12 PM
Stop projecting your sexual fantasies onto the President, k, thanks.

I've gotten to the point where I just can't stand you elitist, know-it-all, government-is-god, liberals. There is a lot of truth to what he told you but you dismiss it through your despicable elitist arrogance.

TGI

Iowanian
05-14-2013, 03:39 PM
Obama wasn't joking about an honest, open, transparent govt.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 04:00 PM
He lied under oath... if that is your definition of 'farce', then there is no help for you.


Yeah, about something that had little or nothing to do with his job. The public made it very, very clear how they felt about having their election results overturned as a result of THAT.

The suspension of his legal license was completely appropriate however. I didn't say there should be no consequences, but impeachment is a pretty freaking serious thing to do. You're overturning the will of the people for some reason so it better be pretty darn serious.

Let's say they prove Obama PERSONALLY ordered the IRS to closely audit tea party members. If they can find evidence of that, which I view as a massive abuse of power, then impeachment is on the table, without question.

Amnorix
05-14-2013, 04:02 PM
I've gotten to the point where I just can't stand you elitist, know-it-all, government-is-god, liberals. There is a lot of truth to what he told you but you dismiss it through your despicable elitist arrogance.

TGI


Dude, you're as far right as far right gets. You can't possibly JUST NOW be reaching the point where you can't stand elitist, know-it-all, government-is-god, liberals....

Nor am I a liberal anymore, actually, but you guys are pegging the needle so far to the left you can't tell what the hell anything remotely near the middle looks like.

LiveSteam
05-14-2013, 04:08 PM
Dude, you're as far right as far right gets. You can't possibly JUST NOW be reaching the point where you can't stand elitist, know-it-all, government-is-god, liberals....

Nor am I a liberal anymore, actually, but you guys are pegging the needle so far to the left you can't tell what the hell anything remotely near the middle looks like.

Who did you vote for last November? :thumb:

NewChief
05-14-2013, 04:11 PM
I've gotten to the point where I just can't stand you elitist, know-it-all, government-is-god, liberals. There is a lot of truth to what he told you but you dismiss it through your despicable elitist arrogance.

TGI

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

The conservatives in this forum are in a frothing at the mouth, batshit crazy feeding frenzy. It's Clinton's second term all over again.

The_Grand_Illusion
05-14-2013, 04:14 PM
Dude, you're as far right as far right gets. You can't possibly JUST NOW be reaching the point where you can't stand elitist, know-it-all, government-is-god, liberals....

Nor am I a liberal anymore, actually, but you guys are pegging the needle so far to the left you can't tell what the hell anything remotely near the middle looks like.

ROFL. If you think you are anywhere in the middle. You are nothing but a typical east coast liberal who thinks they are in the middle but that is how far left this liberal culture has gone.

I was pointing out your arrogance and how Crapski has been right about the left's defense of all things Obama over the years. Never mind, Obama was one of the most inexperienced candidates ever to run for president. But it was your whole despicable culture, through out-of-control political correctness, including the media abusing its power, to bring us what we are seeing today, the abuse of power, corruption, and out right lies of this administration. It's you libs that are responsible for bringing this upon us and that's why I can't stand you more and more.

TGI

The_Grand_Illusion
05-14-2013, 04:17 PM
ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

The conservatives in this forum are in a frothing at the mouth, batshit crazy feeding frenzy. It's Clinton's second term all over again.

Same goes to you, you libs deserve all the ridicule you get for bringing this disaster apon America.

TGI

mikey23545
05-14-2013, 04:20 PM
ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

The conservatives in this forum are in a frothing at the mouth, batshit crazy feeding frenzy. It's Clinton's second term all over again.

You really are counting on being the Headmaster at Reeducation Camp #13, aren't you?

NewChief
05-14-2013, 04:27 PM
You really are counting on being the Headmaster at Reeducation Camp #13, aren't you?

Yeah. That's why I didn't vote for Obama last election.


Dumbass.

mlyonsd
05-14-2013, 04:34 PM
ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

The conservatives in this forum are in a frothing at the mouth, batshit crazy feeding frenzy. It's Clinton's second term all over again.Or Bush's.

NewChief
05-14-2013, 04:42 PM
Or Bush's.

Very true.

Taco John
05-14-2013, 04:47 PM
Yes, it was (not would have, was). That impeachment was a political farce, and they couldn't even get a majority in the Senate that had a Republican majority.

Farce or not, it happened.


Perhaps, but if so it's only because our political system is so woefully broken.

I'm not sure why you think this matters at all. Our political system is our political system. Whether you or I agree with its operation is immaterial to how it operates.

Right now, the president has three major scandals bubbling up. Each one is worthy of an investigation - which are already starting as the DOJ and FBI have begun in some cases. Congress will want to do their own investigations.

What they will find out is one of two things: 1) The president is corrupt, or 2) the president is incompetent. If he's corrupt, he'll be impeached. If he's incompetent, he'll just be what he already is: a lame duck.

Either way, the drip, drip, drip of the next 8 months news cycle is going to be water torture to the president, and the Democrat party in general. Especially as we look towards the mid-terms. That's a long time for democrats to have to circle the wagons. There's a lot of political calculation that will have to be made in that time.

RedNeckRaider
05-14-2013, 04:51 PM
You really are counting on being the Headmaster at Reeducation Camp #13, aren't you?

Standing up for a good guy from the left. I have been here for over 10 years and NewChief is a standup dude. There are plenty of blind idiots from both parties here. He is sure as hell not one of them~

KC native
05-14-2013, 08:52 PM
It's not that a law was broken, it's that during the Bush years had something like this happened we would have heard the left screeching about the police state we're in and how sinister Republicans don't respect journalists and freedoms they require.
Instead it's, "Meh. So?" from a lot of them now that Obama's doing it. Although it does seem to be bothering some. You even have Obama aplogists like the Huff Post talking about it, and they'd overlook almost as much as cosmo.

It's not a meh from the left. I and several others have voiced our displeasure with the continuing and expansion of several Bush policies and procedures.

KC native
05-14-2013, 08:53 PM
ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

The conservatives in this forum are in a frothing at the mouth, batshit crazy feeding frenzy. It's Clinton's second term all over again.

Yes, there aren't many reasonable conservatives on CP. The reasonable ones hardly post in DC anymore.

blaise
05-15-2013, 06:17 AM
It's not a meh from the left. I and several others have voiced our displeasure with the continuing and expansion of several Bush policies and procedures.

I said some people are bothered. Quite a few are also, "meh."

DaveNull
05-15-2013, 06:35 AM
So two straw men walk into a bar...

DaveNull
05-15-2013, 06:59 AM
just giving you some shit, but either way the point is better with concrete examples.

blaise
05-15-2013, 07:00 AM
just giving you some shit, but either way the point is better with concrete examples.

Well, I actually realized that I don't know whether Aries and cosmo cared about that stuff during the Bush years so it was probably an unfair example anyway.

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 07:30 AM
Who did you vote for last November? :thumb:


Romney for POTUS and Scott Brown for Senate.

Keep in mind that I view both as moderate Republicans. If it had been Obama versus pretty much any of the other Republican field for the nomination, I would've voted Obama. The other candidates were either pathetic or just too far right for me.

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 07:35 AM
Farce or not, it happened.

And then was acquitted. By a Republican-majority Senate no less.




I'm not sure why you think this matters at all. Our political system is our political system. Whether you or I agree with its operation is immaterial to how it operates.

That's very pragmatic of you. Are you off your meds or something? Pragmatic isn't exactly an adjective I associate with you.

Right now, the president has three major scandals bubbling up. Each one is worthy of an investigation - which are already starting as the DOJ and FBI have begun in some cases. Congress will want to do their own investigations.

What they will find out is one of two things: 1) The president is corrupt, or 2) the president is incompetent. If he's corrupt, he'll be impeached. If he's incompetent, he'll just be what he already is: a lame duck.

Either way, the drip, drip, drip of the next 8 months news cycle is going to be water torture to the president, and the Democrat party in general. Especially as we look towards the mid-terms. That's a long time for democrats to have to circle the wagons. There's a lot of political calculation that will have to be made in that time.


You are reading off the Republican talking points quite well. None of these issues is anything remotely resembling Iran-Contra, much less Watergate, and it lacks the salacious details that helped keep BlowjobGate so firmly fixed in the American consciousness (along with Republicans funding a lawsuit against the sitting President, of course, to harass him and keep findings front page news).

We will see how these things play out, but while I agree that the President is currently in a jam due to all three of these hitting at once, taken independently I haven't seen anything YET that is massively problematic. Obviously, the investigations aren't done yet so something more interesting/troublesome may yet come to light.

Though Benghazi seems close to done. Doesn't seem to be much there there. Nothing was fumbled that was likely to save lives, etc.

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 07:36 AM
ROFL. If you think you are anywhere in the middle. You are nothing but a typical east coast liberal who thinks they are in the middle but that is how far left this liberal culture has gone.
TGI


I actually voted Republican for POTUS and Senate in the last election. Doubt you can say you voted for a Democrat for POTUS or Congress lately...

LiveSteam
05-15-2013, 07:39 AM
Romney for POTUS and Scott Brown for Senate..

I will have to ask the question again next month, trust me :D

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 07:57 AM
I will have to ask the question again next month, trust me :D

:shrug: Doesn't take long to type it out.

And I said then and say again that Romney/Obama was a close call for me. I didn't view either as particularly great or particularly terrible.

Around here Obama is nothing short of the antichrist, a Muslim Socialist sent by Satan to destroy America. It's in-fucking-credible.

stevieray
05-15-2013, 08:03 AM
"I didn't vote for him "

..like that matters....:rolleyes:

Comrade Crapski
05-15-2013, 08:05 AM
I actually voted Republican for POTUS and Senate in the last election. .

:rolleyes:

You're at that place where men who've lost all dignity find themselves...

You want to keep carrying Barry's piss bucket yet somehow try to keep your distance, or qualify yourself as some kind of pragmatic, moderate voice of reason. LMFAO at you.

You are an O-Bot stooge who did and continues to do everything to protect that worthless scumbag from being held accountable for his incompetence and corruption.

Go crawl back under your rock.

Comrade Crapski
05-15-2013, 08:07 AM
"I didn't vote for him "

..like that matters....:rolleyes:

yeah like Romney had a snowballs chance in Hell in winning Assachussetts.

3-2-1- "he was the governnor nah!" -every O-Bot stooge in DC Holy Land

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 08:09 AM
:rolleyes:

You're at that place where men who've lost all dignity find themselves...

You want to keep carrying Barry's piss bucket yet somehow try to keep your distance, or qualify yourself as some kind of pragmatic, moderate voice of reason. LMFAO at you.

You are an O-Bot stooge who did and continues to do everything to protect that worthless scumbag from being held accountable for his incompetence and corruption.

Go crawl back under your rock.


I eagerly look forward to you screwing up again and getting yourself banned. How you manage to contaminate what is already largely a cesspool is pretty astonishing, and yet you do.

You add nothing to the board except stupidity and a bunch of unpleasant "isms". Enjoy your time here while it lasts.

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 08:10 AM
yeah like Romney had a snowballs chance in Hell in winning Assachussetts.

3-2-1- "he was the governnor nah!" -every O-Bot stooge in DC Holy Land


My vote for POTUS was irrelevant, and always will be.

Brown at least had a chance.

Comrade Crapski
05-15-2013, 08:17 AM
My vote for POTUS was irrelevant, and always will be.

Yet you continue to tell everybody that you voted for Romney BECAUSE YOU KNOW you can no longer pretend that there is any integrity left to your defending Barry.

You are a pathetic weasel.

You might have some people on this board fooled, but the truth is you are one cracker and cheese in front of Frankie on the DC food chain.

And I'm being kind.

Now go put your lipstick and blonde wig on, Barry is waiting for his blowjob.

Amnorix
05-15-2013, 08:22 AM
Yet you continue to tell everybody that you voted for Romney BECAUSE YOU KNOW you can no longer pretend that there is any integrity left to your defending Barry.


errr...no, I mention it because people who are so far to the right of the mainstream they wouldn't know the center if it hit them in the ass try to act like I'm some kind of lunatic liberal from Taxachusetts. Unfortunately for you, and the rest of them, it's not 1970 anymore, we're not Taxachusetts, and I'm not some kind of die-hard far left loon.

But I'm wasting my time talking to you. Might as well talk to the computer monitor.


You are a pathetic weasel.

Words hurt. *sniff*

You might have some people on this board, but the truth is you are one cracker and cheese in front of Frankie on the DC food chain.

And I'm being kind.

Now go put your lipstick and blonde wig on, Barry is waiting for his blowjob.


My stapler has more rational thinking capability than you, so it's no surprise that you're stuck with insults when you can't debate intelligently, and no surprise that even your insults aren't very clever.

The_Grand_Illusion
05-15-2013, 10:38 AM
I actually voted Republican for POTUS and Senate in the last election. Doubt you can say you voted for a Democrat for POTUS or Congress lately...

I had to chuckle because you continue to prove to be such an ignorant liberal know-it-all but it's not all your fault. You are a product of your liberal culture's environment.

What made me chuckle is you said you voted for Republicans but do you realize both those Republicans are liberal??? It just goes to show there really isn't much difference in either party these days. Both parties now offer big government liberalism so you really get the worst of both while drowning future generations in massive debt. I would vote for a Democrat if they conservative but we know those are rare in the Democrat party these days. Let's not forget how corrupt your media has become, because they went all in for their party/ideology and look what that has gotten us. There were some good conservatives that ran for president but they were all bashed and dismissed by this corrupt media. This media is part of the problem and should not ever be taken seriously again.

So you are way off base trying to make this Democrat vs. Republican but I guess if it makes you feel superior and arrogant, so be it but don't get mad if someone calls you out on it.

Like I said, you are a product of your environment. I see today's liberals/ progressives as nothing more than control freaks and government robots that were raised by government education and the big government culture that has followed. You libs are trained to worship and defend anything government as it plays out a majority of the time on this message board day in and day out. It's like government is a deity to some of you. What some of you don't realize is today's liberals, progressives, socialists, fascists, and communists, at their heart, are all control freaks that use the power and scope of government to do their bidding. We all are born with that trait but some of us have learned to tame it and mind our own business.

We all got to witness how the big government culture affected your largest city recently with how its citizens cowered in fear, being in a temporary police state, waiting for the government to take care of them. It was really pathetic as we have a 2nd Amendment that the citizens can help defend themselves and/or assist the authorities.

Comrade Crapski did bring up a good point that most that defend this big government culture here, either work for government or benefit from government. I understand why you would want big gov't, more laws because that is work or security for you. If big government benefits you, at least be intellectually honest about it. There's nothing wrong with self-preservation but look at the cost this big government culture has cost us and the trillions it has cost future generations. It's not sustainable and that's what those in the tea party realize too. I can see why they are a threat to you if you worship big government but we are going to have to come back to reality at some point or continue to destroy this country.

TGI

Comrade Crapski
05-15-2013, 10:47 AM
errr...no, I mention it because people who are so far to the right of the mainstream they wouldn't know the center if it hit them in the ass try to act like I'm some kind of lunatic liberal from Taxachusetts. Unfortunately for you, and the rest of them, it's not 1970 anymore, we're not Taxachusetts, and I'm not some kind of die-hard far left loon.

6 years of ball washing for barry, character assassinating and trying to destroy anyone who dared speak the truth about that communist piece of garbage from Chicongo, but it's all undone now, because you voted for Romney. All is forgiven. You've redeemed yourself.

LMAO

You have some nerve, pal.

Comrade Crapski
05-15-2013, 10:48 AM
I had to chuckle because you continue to prove to be such an ignorant liberal know-it-all but it's not all your fault. You are a product of your liberal culture's environment.

What made me chuckle is you said you voted for Republicans but do you realize both those Republicans are liberal??? It just goes to show there really isn't much difference in either party these days. Both parties now offer big government liberalism so you really get the worst of both while drowning future generations in massive debt. I would vote for a Democrat if they conservative but we know those are rare in the Democrat party these days. Let's not forget how corrupt your media has become, because they went all in for their party/ideology and look what that has gotten us. There were some good conservatives that ran for president but they were all bashed and dismissed by this corrupt media. This media is part of the problem and should not ever be taken seriously again.

So you are way off base trying to make this Democrat vs. Republican but I guess if it makes you feel superior and arrogant, so be it but don't get mad if someone calls you out on it.

Like I said, you are a product of your environment. I see today's liberals/ progressives as nothing more than control freaks and government robots that were raised by government education and the big government culture that has followed. You libs are trained to worship and defend anything government as it plays out a majority of the time on this message board day in and day out. It's like government is a deity to some of you. What some of you don't realize is today's liberals, progressives, socialists, fascists, and communists, at their heart, are all control freaks that use the power and scope of government to do their bidding. We all are born with that trait but some of us have learned to tame it and mind our own business.

We all got to witness how the big government culture affected your largest city recently with how its citizens cowered in fear, being in a temporary police state, waiting for the government to take care of them. It was really pathetic as we have a 2nd Amendment that the citizens can help defend themselves and/or assist the authorities.

Comrade Crapski did bring up a good point that most that defend this big government culture here, either work for government or benefit from government. I understand why you would want big gov't, more laws because that is work or security for you. If big government benefits you, at least be intellectually honest about it. There's nothing wrong with self-preservation but look at the cost this big government culture has cost us and the trillions it has cost future generations. It's not sustainable and that's what those in the tea party realize too. I can see why they are a threat to you if you worship big government but we are going to have to come back to reality at some point or continue to destroy this country.

TGI

Excellent post. Outstanding. :clap:

blaise
05-15-2013, 10:53 AM
There's been a lot of negative press lately. Obama's going to have to turn to his closest advisers - Beyonce and Dave Letterman.

alnorth
05-16-2013, 08:56 AM
It looks like the US Justice Department is going to be completely vindicated on this one. They were investigating a serious leak of highly classified information which put someone in danger and caused us to lose the services of a spy that we had inside AQAP. After hundreds of interviews, they could not find the leak, so the only thing left to do was find out who called the AP.

Some of the hypocrites in congress who are now yelling about this had even written a letter to the Justice Department demanding that they get to the bottom of who leaked this classified info, and now they are surprised at the investigation?

patteeu
05-16-2013, 09:06 AM
It looks like the US Justice Department is going to be completely vindicated on this one. They were investigating a serious leak of highly classified information which put someone in danger and caused us to lose the services of a spy that we had inside AQAP. After hundreds of interviews, they could not find the leak, so the only thing left to do was find out who called the AP.

Some of the hypocrites in congress who are now yelling about this had even written a letter to the Justice Department demanding that they get to the bottom of who leaked this classified info, and now they are surprised at the investigation?

Couldn't they have accomplished the same thing by getting the phone records of all the people inside government that could have leaked that info? Or by coming down hard on the specific reporters who wrote the story to give up their sources? I don't think you've established vindication with your theory, complete or otherwise.

alnorth
05-16-2013, 09:13 AM
Couldn't they have accomplished the same thing by getting the phone records of all the people inside government that could have leaked that info? Or by coming down hard on the specific reporters who wrote the story to give up their sources? I don't think you've established vindication with your theory, complete or otherwise.

Its not the first time that phone records of reporters were acquired. Also, they don't know which phone was used, could have been a friend's phone, or a gas station monthly pay phone, which they could then track down who bought it.

"Coming down on specific reporters who wrote the story" is useless. The reporter will obviously refuse to give up their sources, and sit in jail for a while till a judge lets them go, a martyr to the cause.

If you actually want to find the leak and aren't that interested in just throwing reporters in jail, this is the only way. This story is now dying in favor of other, livelier scandals because people are now beginning to realize what was really going on when the AP began to whine and cry about this.

patteeu
05-16-2013, 09:33 AM
Its not the first time that phone records of reporters were acquired. "Coming down on specific reporters who wrote the story" is useless. The reporter will obviously refuse to give up their sources, and sit in jail for a while till a judge lets them go, a martyr to the cause.

If you actually want to find the leak and aren't that interested in just throwing reporters in jail, this is the only way. This story is now dying in favor of other, livelier scandals because people are now beginning to realize what was really going on when the AP began to whine and cry about this.

To say they've been vindicated, you have to show that it was necessary. Like I said before, I don't think you've done that.

alnorth
05-16-2013, 09:37 AM
To say they've been vindicated, you have to show that it was necessary. Like I said before, I don't think you've done that.

It was necessary. You haven't shown why they need to jump through every last hoop before this step.

Perhaps they need to see if they can find the leak internally without involving the press, but they tried that. They were unable to find the leak internally.

From that point, given that the feds now have to legally attack the press, and that the leak threatened our national security, I have no objection with proceeding straight to the phone records and not bothering with waiting 6 months or a year, twiddling their thumbs while hoping a reporter breaks.

This was not drugs or a bank robbery, someone cost us a very valuable resource in a terrorist organization, and for all we know they were poised to continue their irresponsible leaks that threaten national security. Speed was a factor.

patteeu
05-16-2013, 09:40 AM
It was necessary. You haven't shown why they need to jump through every last hoop before this step.

Perhaps they need to see if they can find the leak internally without involving the press, but they tried that. They were unable to find the leak internally.

From that point, given that the feds now have to legally attack the press, and that the leak threatened our national security, I have no objection with proceeding straight to the phone records and not bothering with waiting 6 months or a year, twiddling their thumbs while hoping a reporter breaks.

This was not drugs or a bank robbery, someone cost us a very valuable resource in a terrorist organization, and for all we know they were poised to continue their irresponsible leaks that threaten national security. Speed was a factor.

That's what I'd say if I were willing to accept everything the administration tells us at face value without giving it much critical thought too, I guess.

alnorth
05-16-2013, 09:44 AM
That's what I'd say if I were willing to accept everything the administration tells us at face value without giving it much critical thought too, I guess.

There is nothing they could possibly be lying about in this case which would be relevant to the discussion.

We know for a fact that this leak was a threat to national security. We know for a fact that they could not find the leak internally.

Those two facts are pretty much all we need to know to justify what they did here.

Amnorix
05-16-2013, 09:46 AM
That's what I'd say if I were willing to accept everything the administration tells us at face value without giving it much critical thought too, I guess.

I assume you're willing to admit your massive bias on this? If it were Bush/Cheney holding office instead of Obama/Biden, you'd have the same position that alnorth has stated, right?

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 09:48 AM
For all we know, reporting it was necessary due to leaks, could be a false report in itself. We already know Obama doesn't like Republican leaning news outlets. Or libertarians. That he'd love to get his hands on the internet, even to shut it down. The right is opposed to most of what he stands for including going after guns. This, plus going after patriots or Constitutionalists, after having a HS head labeling the same folks as terrorists doesn't give any of Obama Administrations claims much credibility. He's a wannabe dictator breaking the law by usurping powers he does not possess. When all these things are considered as a whole, it doesn't reflect well.

stevieray
05-16-2013, 09:49 AM
I assume you're willing to admit your massive bias on this? If it were Bush/Cheney holding office instead of Obama/Biden, you'd have the same position that alnorth has stated, right?

BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH

patteeu
05-16-2013, 09:50 AM
There is nothing they could possibly be lying about in this case which would be relevant to the discussion.

We know for a fact that this leak was a threat to national security. We know for a fact that they could not find the leak internally.

Those two facts are pretty much all we need to know to justify what they did here.

First of all, we don't know what kind of threat to national security this was unless we take the administration's word for it. Second, we don't know that they tried enough more reasonable, non-press-chilling approaches.

For just one example of how they went beyond necessary, why did they need to seize these records secretly? Why couldn't they have accomplished the same thing while informing the AP that they were doing it? It's not like the AP has the ability to delete their phone records.

Amnorix
05-16-2013, 09:51 AM
Anyone here disagree that the leak that there was a US planted spy in an Al Quada affiliate was damaging to national security?

Anyone here disagree that whoever leaked that information should be identified and prosecuted, if possible?

alnorth
05-16-2013, 09:51 AM
This, plus going after patriots or Constitutionalists

The IRS scandal is deeply disturbing. At best, the administration was hands-off to the point of not giving a damn what the IRS did to the point where they could run wild. Even that is difficult to believe, because their actions were awfully convenient politically for the administration given the timing of the filings, the delay, and the elections.

This AP issue is a non-story that is distracting people from what we really ought to be focusing on.

Amnorix
05-16-2013, 09:51 AM
BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH


You're babbling again.

Amnorix
05-16-2013, 09:53 AM
That he'd love to get his hands on the internet, even to shut it down.


Your insanity is showing again.

alnorth
05-16-2013, 09:54 AM
First of all, we don't know what kind of threat to national security this was unless we take the administration's word for it. Second, we don't know that they tried enough more reasonable, non-press-chilling approaches.

For just one example of how they went beyond necessary, why did they need to seize these records secretly? Why couldn't they have accomplished the same thing while informing the AP that they were doing it? It's not like the AP has the ability to delete their phone records.

We don't need to take the administration's word for it, they didn't even reveal all the damage that the leak caused, the British did. They had the compromised asset and were pissed at the Americans for the leak.

What is the point of informing the AP about it beforehand? It does absolutely nothing except potentially tip off the leaker that he may soon be caught, giving him a chance to cover any tracks he may have left lying about.

patteeu
05-16-2013, 09:56 AM
I assume you're willing to admit your massive bias on this? If it were Bush/Cheney holding office instead of Obama/Biden, you'd have the same position that alnorth has stated, right?

Despite the rampant national-security-harming leaks (far worse than this one, based on what we've been told about it so far) that took place during the Bush administration, they never even came close to this kind of thing. I think they should have done more to stop those leaks, but I don't think it would ever be necessary to perform such a broad sweep of phone records from a press organization over a single story. Given that it's hard for me to fathom this going on with Bush/Cheney in the WH, it's hard for me to answer your question.

Another way to put this is that I'm very hawkish about stopping national security leaks and even I think this is too much. I'd rather prosecute journalists who specifically publish leaks under the espionage laws of our country than persecute journalists more broadly.

alnorth
05-16-2013, 09:58 AM
I'd rather prosecute journalists who specifically publish leaks under the espionage laws of our country than persecute journalists more broadly.

The journalists did not break any laws. Your approach would not only be utterly worthless, it would be dangerous.

patteeu
05-16-2013, 10:02 AM
The journalists did not break any laws. Your approach would not only be utterly worthless, it would be dangerous.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think your approach is worse.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-16-2013, 10:13 AM
We have freedom of press....errr whatever.

Fairplay
05-16-2013, 10:16 AM
Der leader will be in front of a large group of reporters again shortly.
He will be appearing with the leader of Turkey.

It is expected he will be barraged with questions on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP scandals.

Jay Carney was no one to be seen.

The_Grand_Illusion
05-16-2013, 10:26 AM
Livestream posted this last night but the congressman clarified his statement this morning from a recent interview with Hugh Hewitt. I guess this administration doesn't care about separation of power:

Rep Devin Nunes: "So when they went after the AP reporters, right? Went after all of their phone records, they went after the phone records, including right up here in the House Gallery, right up from where I’m sitting right now. So you have a real separation of powers issue that did this really rise to the level that you would have to get phone records that would, that would most likely include members of Congress, because as you know…"

stevieray
05-16-2013, 10:40 AM
You're babbling again.

IF BUSH is your key phrase...impressive!

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 11:06 AM
The IRS scandal is deeply disturbing. At best, the administration was hands-off to the point of not giving a damn what the IRS did to the point where they could run wild. Even that is difficult to believe, because their actions were awfully convenient politically for the administration given the timing of the filings, the delay, and the elections.

This AP issue is a non-story that is distracting people from what we really ought to be focusing on.

Well, what I mean about going after Patriots and Constitutionalists, is Janet Napolitano saying early on and overtly, that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers and Constitutionalists were terrorists...now this development.

I think what's happening is the powers behind the throne, our oligarchy, is turning on him because he's not pulling off all their desired plans. Hence, the media turning on Obama and an explosion of scandals.

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 11:19 AM
It looks like the US Justice Department is going to be completely vindicated on this one. They were investigating a serious leak of highly classified information

That's what Holder says.

You believe him? Really?

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 01:17 PM
Well, what I mean about going after Patriots and Constitutionalists, is Janet Napolitano saying early on and overtly, that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers and Constitutionalists were terrorists...now this development.



Yeah, ok. How about a link on that?

Amnorix
05-16-2013, 01:21 PM
Yeah, ok. How about a link on that?


Let me guess.....might be lewrockwell.com. if not then probably lewrockwell.com. Might've been a post from someone at lewrockwell.com, or possible a link to an article that was seen on lewrockwell.com

One of those...

BigChiefTablet
05-16-2013, 01:25 PM
So, Eric Holder says things were so bad we had to do it. I mean literally American lives were threatened on this so that’s why we did it.

Obama says “huh?” Didn’t even know about this until I watched it on the news the other day.

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 01:31 PM
Yeah, ok. How about a link on that?

Let me guess.....might be lewrockwell.com. if not then probably lewrockwell.com. Might've been a post from someone at lewrockwell.com, or possible a link to an article that was seen on lewrockwell.com

One of those...

You two take scumbag to a whole new level. that fat bulldyke Janet Napolitano accused returning American combat veterans, Tea Party participants and members of most any group that wasn’t in the Obama camp of being potential ‘domestic terrorists’.

You know damn well she said it, take the link and shove it up your ass, Barry boy can play ring toss later digging for it with his penis.

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 01:33 PM
You two take scumbag to a whole new level. that fat bulldyke Janet Napolitano accused returning American combat veterans, Tea Party participants and members of most any group that wasn’t in the Obama camp of being potential ‘domestic terrorists’.

You know damn well she said it, take the link and shove it up your ass, Barry boy can play ring toss later digging for it with his penis.

What link? You have one?

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 01:36 PM
What link? You have one?

She fucking said it, scumbag.

You probably agree with her, too.

BigChiefTablet
05-16-2013, 01:37 PM
Fucking google it asshole. Here I did it for you. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

As much time as you spend on forums and news sites you sure seem pretty fucking uninformed.

Xanathol
05-16-2013, 01:39 PM
There is nothing they could possibly be lying about in this case which would be relevant to the discussion.

We know for a fact that this leak was a threat to national security. We know for a fact that they could not find the leak internally.

Those two facts are pretty much all we need to know to justify what they did here.
And these are facts why? And no - you don't get to break some laws to enforce others ( see the hoops they are suppose to go through to get phone records on just one reporter ).

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 01:44 PM
You two take scumbag to a whole new level. that fat bulldyke Janet Napolitano accused returning American combat veterans, Tea Party participants and members of most any group that wasn’t in the Obama camp of being potential ‘domestic terrorists’.

You know damn well she said it, take the link and shove it up your ass, Barry boy can play ring toss later digging for it with his penis.

There are a lot of nuts on this board, but you have to be one of the very few actual psychopaths. You've actually been diagnosed as psychotic, haven't you?

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 01:44 PM
****ing google it asshole. Here I did it for you. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

As much time as you spend on forums and news sites you sure seem pretty ****ing uninformed.

I won't even waste my time with their Chicongo tactics. He knows damn well she said it, she even apologized for it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/napolitano-apologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/

But the links change nothing he'll continue to lie and say she never said it anything to protect Dear Leader was scrutiny and criticism.

FUCKING BASTARD.

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 01:44 PM
There are a lot of nuts on this board, but you have to be one of the very few actual psychopaths. You've actually been diagnosed as psychotic, haven't you?

YOU ARE A WORTHLESS FAT SCUMBAG. FUCK OFF AND DIE.

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 01:49 PM
****ing google it asshole. Here I did it for you. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

As much time as you spend on forums and news sites you sure seem pretty ****ing uninformed.

I won't even waste my time with their Chicongo tactics. He knows damn well she said it, she even apologized for it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/napolitano-apologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/

But the links change nothing he'll continue to lie and say she never said it anything to protect Dear Leader was scrutiny and criticism.

****ING BASTARD.

Nope, nothing about saying that people who have a Ron Paul bumper sticker are terrorists. Try again, nuts.

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 01:53 PM
Nope, nothing about saying that people who have a Ron Paul bumper sticker are terrorists. Try again, nuts.

Keep sucking that obama tootsie roll bitch. May as well, you already have HIV and will be dead from AIDS soon any way.

BigChiefTablet
05-16-2013, 01:56 PM
Nope, nothing about saying that people who have a Ron Paul bumper sticker are terrorists. Try again, nuts.

it's in the report that the article I linked is referring to. I could try and dig it up, but I really can't be bothered to prove something to you.

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 02:03 PM
it's in the report that the article I linked is referring to. I could try and dig it up, but I really can't be bothered to prove something to you.

I was told this is something that Janet Napolitano said. Did she at least write the report? Keep looking...

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 02:05 PM
I was told this is something that Janet Napolitano said. Did she at least write the report? Keep looking...

And keep sucking!

BigChiefTablet
05-16-2013, 02:07 PM
I was told this is something that Janet Napolitano said. Did she at least write the report? Keep looking...

To be honest, I don't know if she had a hand in writing the report or not. She did however defend the report and its contents. You really going to split hairs over the semantics of Crapski's post or are you just being a dick as usual?

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 02:13 PM
To be honest, I don't know if she had a hand in writing the report or not. She did however defend the report and its contents. You really going to split hairs over the semantics of Crapski's post or are you just being a dick as usual?

He just can't stand it that his Precious is under such scrutiny for all of his incompetence and corruption. This is all new to Barry.

The scrutiny, not the incompetence and corruption.

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 02:19 PM
To be honest, I don't know if she had a hand in writing the report or not. She did however defend the report and its contents. You really going to split hairs over the semantics of Crapski's post or are you just being a dick as usual?

Split hairs? I responded to someone else (not comrade dipshit) saying that Janet said that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers are terrorists, and I asked for a link. Then that psycho chimes in, and then you start up. Maybe you should STFU until you know what you are talking about or can at least back up what you are saying.

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 02:21 PM
And the hits just keep on coming:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/15/would-you-believe-the-administration-bugged-the-phones-in-the-house-of-representatives/

KozMo! RUN LITTLE BITCH BOY! quick dig up some dirt on Nunes to try and destroy him!

WhawhaWhat
05-16-2013, 02:28 PM
Keep sucking that obama tootsie roll bitch. May as well, you already have HIV and will be dead from AIDS soon any way.

There are HIV trees too?

BigChiefTablet
05-16-2013, 02:37 PM
Split hairs? I responded to someone else (not comrade dipshit) saying that Janet said that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers are terrorists, and I asked for a link. Then that psycho chimes in, and then you start up. Maybe you should STFU until you know what you are talking about or can at least back up what you are saying.

So someone references a topic that is several months old and confuses her actually saying those words with her defending those words in an official report sent to law enforcement agencies intended to establish policy. But, no, you're not splitting hairs.

I guess if you can't argue a legitimate point you can always resort to picking apart the straw men.

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 02:40 PM
So someone references a topic that is several months old and confuses her actually saying those words with her defending those words in an official report sent to law enforcement agencies intended to establish policy. But, no, you're not splitting hairs.

I guess if you can't argue a legitimate point you can always resort to picking apart the straw men.

Yeah, there's always a lot of confusion when you guys are making your made-up assertions.

BigChiefTablet
05-16-2013, 02:43 PM
Yeah, there's always a lot of confusion when you guys are making your made-up assertions.

I made up what?

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 04:10 PM
I made up what?

Don't waste your time. Call him a scumbag--- WHICH IS WHAT HE IS--- and be done with his worthless ass.

He was born out of his mothers ass.

listopencil
05-16-2013, 08:37 PM
Did they tap the phones?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6SC1cea28UQ/UYgT3HYg2MI/AAAAAAAALWw/kxhjTM2voh8/s1600/hillary-clinton-libya-hearing-0123-story-top_zpsdbd82ec8.jpg

petegz28
05-16-2013, 09:07 PM
This was all so legal that Holder recused himself informally and is less than 100% sure that the Deputy AG authorized the whole deal.

I mean how fucking convenient. You get busted then you just say "I recused myself", verbally without any notification to anyone.


RIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHTTTT

LiveSteam
05-16-2013, 09:10 PM
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know

Comrade Crapski
05-17-2013, 09:54 AM
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know
I dont know

Barry's just a crazy, mixed up teenager!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V_SL6X3b76c/UWXFSwb5JhI/AAAAAAAAbw8/9Il3v4DYsXY/s640/obama_baseball.gif

and kOZmo sucks that things ass in front of everybody LMAO

LiveSteam
05-17-2013, 10:39 AM
This is the question I want answered
If Barry is impeached? Will NocommonsenseCosmo.00000002 commit suicide?

Xanathol
05-17-2013, 10:43 AM
This is the question I want answered
If Barry is impeached? Will NocommonsenseCosmo.00000002 commit suicide?

The only thing I fear about impeaching Obama is that dumbass Biden...

Comrade Crapski
05-17-2013, 02:37 PM
The only thing I fear about impeaching Obama is that dumbass Biden...

I don't think Barry will get touched at all by all of this.

But what this will do is create another mid-term election bloodbath for communists.

Right now I think the commies are just trying to make Hillary palatable for 2016.

If they lose her as a candidate, then Barry will have actually accomplished something positive (for producing, patriotic Americans) in 8 years as POTUS.

What a disgraceful clown car this regime has been.

Dayze
05-18-2013, 03:33 AM
We are screwed regardless of who is in office. Once elected they'll do whatever the folks who paid to get them elected tell them to.

Sad state of affairs

Comrade Crapski
05-18-2013, 07:56 AM
This was all so legal that Holder recused himself informally and is less than 100% sure that the Deputy AG authorized the whole deal.

I mean how ****ing convenient. You get busted then you just say "I recused myself", verbally without any notification to anyone.


RIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHTTTT

It was the biggest security breach he'd ever seen.

Yet, he delegated it to a subordinate, and never told his boss what was going on. Never did any follow-up whatsoever.

Riiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Only a mouthfoaming, scumsucking ball washer like kozmo20002 believes this crap.