Some absolute bullshit from Obama Administration

ONW said:

OBL says he needs a snorkel.

Click to expand...

Wrangor said:

Haha...I think my post came off as attacking OBama. I wasn't. I was actually saying the opposite. I don't think our rhetoric has a whole lot to do with terrorist activity. It is our actions that matter.

Click to expand...

ONW said:

Turns out Fox and Rosen haven't been totally honest this entire time.

Click to expand...

Wrangor said:

Haha...I think my post came off as attacking OBama. I wasn't. I was actually saying the opposite. I don't think our rhetoric has a whole lot to do with terrorist activity. It is our actions that matter.

Click to expand...

RJKarl said:

His "actions" have killed and captured many, many innocent men, women and children. There is no way to rationally dispute this.

Click to expand...

RJKarl said:

His "actions" have killed and captured many, many terrorists. There is no way to rationally dispute this.

Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:

"Most transparent Admin in history" fail.

Click to expand...

WakeandBake said:

BlameObama fail.


And Rosen isn't even who they were ultimately after, it was Kim.

Click to expand...

Wrangor said:

The defense of this from liberals is humorous. There are posters that have shown their true colors. Some of you have shown to be blindly partisan twisting your argument around and around to justify the admins actions. Others (like BBD/ONW) have shown themselves to be reasonable and sensible posters. I think Bake would defend Obama starting another ME war because of weapons of mass destruction. It is quite embarrassing.

Click to expand...

An analysis of Kim’s desk and mobile phones showed dozens of calls between him and Rosen. During a September interview with the F.B.I., Kim told the agents that the best e-mail to use to reach him was a Yahoo! account. The next day, he called and said he was getting rid of the Yahoo! account and the F.B.I. should instead use a Google account he had set up. A forensic analysis of Kim’s hard drive, the affidavit says, found an e-mail from Rosen; the affidavit suggests that the e-mail had been deleted. Moreover, electronic records showed that after his interview with the F.B.I., Kim’s user profile accessed his Yahoo! account—which he told the F.B.I. he was getting rid of the next day—and viewed e-mails that had been sent from Rosen’s account.

At that point, the F.B.I. obtains subpoenas for the Yahoo! accounts of both Kim and Rosen. There, they find communications between the two of them in which they are using aliases—Kim is “Leo” and Rosen is “Alex.”

So, here is the scenario: Kim is one of a few officials who sees classified information about possible nuclear tests by North Korea. He speaks to Rosen of Fox. And shortly thereafter, Fox runs the story about the classified information. The F.B.I. questions Kim and then comes to believe that he is deleting information from his computer. So, knowing already that Kim is in communication with Rosen, it subpoenas both Kim’s and Rosen’s e-mail accounts.

Click to expand...

These lawyers recognize the threats to a free press but say the dangers of national security leaks — and the difficulties in finding the leakers — sometimes force the government’s hand. The actions of the Obama administration were unusual and deserve careful scrutiny, they say, but do not automatically equal a clear-cut abuse of power.

“I don’t think it’s a scandal,” said John Dean, Richard Nixon’s White House counsel who served jail time for his role in the Watergate cover-up. “It’s certainly not Nixonian.”

Dean said there is an inherent tension between protecting a free press and ensuring the nation’s safety. “It is something obviously the media is going to be exercised about because it’s affected a lot of their good sources,” he said. “I’m one who is very pro-open government, but I can also understand you can’t run national security operations in a fishbowl. So there’s got to be a balancing.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/doj-ap-subpoena-91579.html#ixzz2Uu7P3HIB

Click to expand...

Many legal experts argue, however, that the information available about the AP investigation thus far — while incomplete — does not show any violation of legal protections for the press.

Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has never found a reporter’s privilege within the First Amendment. The closest it came was a 1972 ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes, in which it held 5-4 that reporters are not exempt from testifying in a criminal grand jury, even if it means identifying their confidential sources.

In that ruling, the court declined “to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy.” Lawmakers who argue that the Justice Department infringed on First Amendment guarantees of a free press, in other words, are taking a view that the Supreme Court has never accepted.

Statutorily, lawmakers have all but acknowledged that the DOJ did not break existing free-press laws because they instead are suggesting new laws be passed in response to the AP scandal.

Click to expand...

In this country, the Attorney General is well within his jurisdiction to get to the bottom of classified leaks. As for Rosen, he was targeted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for his communication with State Department adviser Stephen Kim, who leaked him information about North Korea's nuclear program. Yes, the DOJ labeled Rosen a "co-conspirator" for his attempts to get the information from Kim but the intent was never to prosecute Rosen. You can be a co-conspirator without being the target of the investigation. Moreover, the fact that Rosen's personal emails were searched is nothing out of the ordinary for an investigation by the DOJ. E-mails are commonly used by subjects of the criminal investigation and the e-mail evidence frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.

Click to expand...