The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Holder meeting with the press

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default Holder meeting with the press

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...287_story.html

    Generously, Holder agreed to let the journalists in attendance to
    they could describe what occurred during the meeting in general terms. The Justice Department is expected to meet with other news organizations and media lawyers in coming days.
    Holder and aides “completely endorsed the president’s statement that reporters should not be at legal risk for doing their job,” said Martin Baron, The Washington Post’s executive editor, who was among the participants. “They acknowledged the need for changes in their own guidelines and the need to have a more rigorous internal review.”
    In addition to reviewing those guidelines, Holder and his deputy, James M. Cole, said Thursday that they would consider supporting statutory changes that would sharply reduce the chance that a journalist would be described as a possible “co-conspirator” in a crime as part of an effort to obtain a search warrant.
    They've had about two years to review their guidelines, but didn't get around to it until someone caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.

    "Trust me," says Holder (said the scorpion to the frog).
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    [URL].................................................. ............................................

    "Trust me," says Holder (said the scorpion to the frog).
    And a person wants to yell "WHY" at him. Gerry you do good research.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  3. #3
    Senior Member helencalif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    in the mountains at Lake Almanor, CA
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Campaigning for President, Obama promised his administration would be the most transparent.

    Then his AG has an "off the record" meeting to soothe the press for his and the DOJs law breaking. "Gee. we are sorry. We promise not to do it again" is what I am reading was said at Holder's meeting.

  4. #4
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Funny how things come full circle. President Bush in 2002 ordered the illegal eavesdropping of hundreds maybe thousands of citizens without first getting warrants from the Fisa court. Each eavesdropping incident is a felony and there really is no doubt that what was done was illegal. Three federal judges who actually ruled on the Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program said that it violated the law.

    As I remember when it was discussed on this board many conservatives didn't really think it was a big deal.

    Well now here we are in 2013 and we have something similiar but with a different party in power and the tone of things have changed with conservatives. Now to be fair, and I have stated this previously before here, the Democrats have remained silent on this issue when back in 2002 and later they were epileptic in there displeasure that this happened.

    This is why it is so important to forget what party is in power and that when it is found out that the law was broken, then people have to be held accountable.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default

    Yes, cotts, each party views the other's transgressions differently than their own

    However, there is an added "feature" to this DOJ's use of wiretapping on the press. In theory, if the govt wants a warrant to eavesdrop on the press, they are supposed to notify the journalistic organization, so that they have a chance to make a case why it should not be done. Holder had to go to 3 judges before he found one who would allow the eavesdropping withOUT notifying Fox. That was the warrant that Holder signed, so that is the one that might be the basis for his perjury in his earlier statement that this was not something he had done, or would think was good a good policy. Also, a more serious transgression in the Rosen situation, since DOJ was citing Rosen as a "co-conspirator".
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Yes, cotts, each party views the other's transgressions differently than their own

    However, there is an added "feature" to this DOJ's use of wiretapping on the press. In theory, if the govt wants a warrant to eavesdrop on the press, they are supposed to notify the journalistic organization, so that they have a chance to make a case why it should not be done. Holder had to go to 3 judges before he found one who would allow the eavesdropping withOUT notifying Fox. That was the warrant that Holder signed, so that is the one that might be the basis for his perjury in his earlier statement that this was not something he had done, or would think was good a good policy. Also, a more serious transgression in the Rosen situation, since DOJ was citing Rosen as a "co-conspirator".
    Did these judges actually say that they rejected the warrant based on not notifying Fox, or is this just speculation? Could you post a link to the source?

  7. #7
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Did these judges actually say that they rejected the warrant based on not notifying Fox, or is this just speculation? Could you post a link to the source?
    It would appear from Reuters that the desire to keep the eavesdropping "secret" is a matter of public filings?

    http://therightscoop.com/report-doj-...earch-warrant/

    I think it's worth noting that The Washington Post is a part of the MSM, generally leaning liberal. I think some often confuse it with The Washington Examiner, which is right-leaning.


    ***UPDATED WITH REUTERS OFFICIAL REPORT***
    If it weren’t for the Washington Post reporting this, Rosen would still not know that he was being spied on by the federal government. His personal emails, his telephone calls, etc. And it’s been almost 5 years since this began! And all over a freaking leak about N. Korea testing nukes:
    THE NEW YORKER – The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.
    The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.

    Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.
    The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.

    The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
    Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.


    As Helen notes:
    Then his AG has an "off the record" meeting to soothe the press for his and the DOJs law breaking. "Gee. we are sorry. We promise not to do it again" is what I am reading was said at Holder's meeting.


    We keep hearing the same phrase about preventing it from happening again ... for Benghazi, for the IRS chicanery, for the DOJ chicancery. The only apology not forthcoming was from Napolitano regarding releasing known felon illegal immigrant detainees.

    It is also a little distressing that the POTUS continues spending taxpayer funds to fly around while hot meals to military in A'stan have been curtailed. Since Executive Orders are so effective in everything else, why could the "executive" not transfer some of his travel funds to be used for these meals?

    If exec order can be used to ignore immigration laws, it seems that exec order would actually be welcomed by everyone in over-riding some sequester actions? Might say the same for the White House tours. Since Secret Service supposedly made that decision, if POTUS curtailed some campaigning trips, those expenses would directly impact the Secret Service budget. Possibly cancelling just a couple of those campaign trips would have been enough $ to carry the tours for the entire year?

    The sad, sad thing about sequester (and also Obamacare) is that those who made these laws bear no consequences for the effect of these laws. "Let them eat cake," has a familiar ring to it.

    Gerry
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    3,012

    Default

    Gerry-

    The Marine meal case seems to be ripe for a sequester rebuttal but really, it's not. It's a matter of the logistics issues of the draw down in Afghanistan. During the planning for the draw-down, the logistics planners have to decide, who do we send home first, warriors or support personnel? As the draw-down takes place, at some point there will be too few cooks to serve fresh meals and the unit will revert to MRE's.

    The troops are forgetting the build-up period. The warriors entered the endeavor first and ate MRE's. Later, the cooks arrived and gradually the system built up to the meal system that it was.

    I've eaten a lot of MRE's. No one says that the Marines can't collect under a dining tent and all eat an MRE. The issue is simply that they'll eat MRE's rather than A rations (fresh food) or B (unitized trays of pre-packed rations that can be immersion heated) or B rations supplemented by some A rations like fresh milk and bread. Frankly, unless you are careful, you can get just plain fat on a 2200 calorie MRE for each meal.

    This was a news story that was pushed by the press for some reason. Can't have been a slow news day.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy")
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge

  9. #9
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default

    http://therightscoop.com/boom-judge-...d-be-indicted/

    Judge Jeanine Pirro gives her opinion of Holder's actions. She pulls no punches. I'm sure that there will be those who put Pirro in the same "box" as Palin and Bachman. FWIW, I do not think this would be valid comparison.

    Pirro lays out the offenses of Holder, and actually lists the points of an indictment for him. She makes an exceptionally good point in that Holder invited AP and Fox to his off-the-record meeting. When in history has a prosecutor ever invited the target of an investigation to an off-the-record meeting? She also refers back to F&F where Holder says he knew nothing about it until Feb. 2011, and the POTUS indicated that even he (POTUS) knew about it before then. Was Holder intentionally kept out of the loop? Doesn't make sense.

    It's interesting to me that Holder so unequivocally stipulated (in the Congressional hearing), that he never had done, nor would do, something he absolutely knew that he HAD done. I cannot believe he "forgot" he had to shop three judges to do it. The belated evidence was attributed to some clerk mis-filing the document that proved he was lying. Had the "fix" been put in, but someone had an attack of conscience?

    By the way, as I recall, the classified info that Rosen revealed was to the effect that (paraphrasing): if the U.S. does this, then NK "may" do that. While the info may have been classified, so the govt employee, was at fault for revealing the info (even though it was pretty innocuous), Rosen's reporting didn't actually tell anyone anything that NK hadn't been saying publicly right along.

    Why would not AP have also been considered "aiding and abetting" their source? Even though they were advised that the info was "classified" and cooperated in timing the release of their story, didn't they also aid and abet the leak? I don't recall hearing whether the leaker of that info was ever put in jail (as was Rosen's source). JMO, that since AP is more "friendly" to the administration, they were "punished" just enough to let them know who runs the show. What would have happened if Nixon had tried to do this to Woodward & Bernstein? But Holder gets a free pass? And the POTUS gives Holder is "full confidence"?
    Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 06-02-2013 at 12:44 PM.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default

    Eric, I see your point.

    OTOH, did you read the article in Parade about the cooking contests in the military? Two of the top cooks in the military are on duty with Dempsey to provide the best of service to him and his guests at the Pentagon. One of those cooks actually helped established bakeries in A'stan at one point. Dempsey sits comfortably in DC, and he gets two of the best cooks in the military? How about Dempsey eats the MREs and sends his two cooks to the troops?

    Second, one might argue that morale in the draw-down is more fragile than with the build-up (especially after seeing what happened in Iraq.) It would seem a small thing to make some logistical adjustments to help morale for the troops in harm's way. Shouldn't these logistical geniuses have planned better for the draw-down?

    I always respect your factual info, Eric. Just seems that the logistical planners need some improvement.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •