The AP - the WH - and the DoJ

[Jolie Rouge]

Eric Holder recuses himself from AP leak investigation;
Update: Press conference(s) over
By Doug Powers • May 14, 2013 01:04 PM


The latest on the AP/DOJ fallout by way of Katie Pavlich at Townhall: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/14/breaking-eric-holder-recuses-himself-from-leak-investigation-n1594600


Attorney General Eric Holder has recused himself from the Associated Press leak investigation. He will officially announce his recusal at a press conference Tuesday afternoon. Fox News is reporting his recusal comes partially because Holder has testified about potential national security leaks surrounding a May 7, 2012 Associated Press story.


Holder’s recusal is of course in response to this story: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130513/DA68MMQ82.html


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.

Did the Obama Justice Department try just asking first? It’s not like the AP hasn’t been amenable in the past. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/hurt-newshounds-in-heat/print/

We’re now awaiting what promises to be an interesting White House press conference. Years later the press is starting to show up to the party — it’s amazing what happens when the intrusions start hitting so close to home. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/14/watergate-reporter-blasts-white-house-for-attack-on-media Cue Jay Carney’s theme song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFgc_fNfAw

(Update: Carney and Holder are holding their separate press conferences simultaneously — and they expect everybody to believe they don’t coordinate activities?)

The AP, IRS and Benghazi — but still another shoe yet to drop? http://twitchy.com/2013/05/14/drudge-editor-joseph-curl-cia-source-says-still-one-more-shoe-to-drop-for-obama-admin/

Update II: Press conferences are over. Holder justified seizing AP phone records by saying they were investigating a “very serious” leak. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/usa-holder-leak-idUSL2N0DV31S20130514 Holder also said the number of leaks they’ve been investigating is higher than previous administrations, making it sound as if the amount of freedom we have will depend on the number of leakers in any given administration. Imagine the left’s reaction if this had come from John Ashcroft.

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/14/eric-holder-recuses/

[Jolie Rouge]

Holder says leak prompting AP subpoena was very serious
WASHINGTON | Tue May 14, 2013 2:23pm EDT

WASHINGTON May 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday that the national security information leak that prompted the Department of Justice to seize Associated Press phone records was among the most serious breaches he has ever seen.

Holder told a news conference he was certain that investigators had followed appropriate Department of Justice rules and regulations in their probe, which has raised concerns about the freedom of the press.

He also stressed that he had recused himself from the matter out of an "abundance of caution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/usa-holder-leak-idUSL2N0DV31S20130514

Blame Fox News! Sniveling twit Jay Carney spins for Obama on AP scandal
Posted at 2:47 pm on May 14, 2013 by Twitchy Staff


Dana Loesch ✔ @DLoesch

Shorter Carney: "It's all Fox News's fault."

12:36 PM - 14 May 2013

That’s right. Press secretary Jay Carney whipped out the ol’ Fox News-bashing card during his press briefing today. After diminishing the lives of four murdered Americans by calling Benghazi a “political circus,” natch. Shameful and shameless: Perfect together!

Clown Carney answered (by answered, we mean spun) a question on the AP phone records scandal. By bashing Fox News. http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/clown-carney-white-house-shocked-to-hear-about-aps-phone-records-being-investigated/


WhiteHousePressCorps @whpresscorps

RT @DomenicoNBC: Carney on why Obama doesn't call Holder before IG investigation is released:
"Imagine the story on Fox if that happened."

12:36 PM - 14 May 2013


Michelle Malkin ✔ @michellemalkin

Really, Jay Carney?
Using Wendell Goler's question about Holder/AP snoop-gate to bash Fox?

12:35 PM - 14 May 2013

The Right Scoop has the video: http://www.therightscoop.com/video-jay-carney-bashes-fox-news-while-making-excuses-for-obama/

Sheesh, Carney, can you at least come up with something original? How boring.

Twitter users rightly give the sniveling twit the business. http://twitchy.com/2013/05/14/blame-fox-news-sniveling-twit-jay-carney-spins-for-obama-on-ap-scandal/

"Imagine the story on Fox if that happened!!" What is it Carney? Are you scared they'd report it without trying to spin it into a way of protecting Obama like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS will do?

...


State of denial: Jay Carney unwilling to admit that IRS targeted conservative groups Carney just slams Fox. They used up the Romney excuse last week.


Zing! Brit Hume places odds on Carney’s ‘repetition sweepstakes’; Blasts excuses
Posted at 4:08 pm on May 14, 2013 by Twitchy Staff


Brit Hume ✔ @brithume

In the Carney repetition sweepstakes "unfettered" still in the lead, but "inappropriate" is mounting a charge. #couldbeclose1

2:48 PM - 14 May 2013

Bam! As Twitchy reported earlier today, #unfettered was trending as Twitter users mocked press secretary Jay Carney after his disaster of a press briefing. http://twitchy.com/2013/05/14/unfettered-and-meme-licious-jay-carney-totally-appreciates-the-unfettered-mockery-gold/

Boy, was it beautiful. And Fox News’ Brit Hume put the icing on the snark cake with that tweet.

Hume also blasted Carney’s lame spin attempts.


Brit Hume ✔ @brithume

Head of IRS unit responsible has said publicly conservative groups targeted.
Yet Pres. Obama & Carney still wondering "If" it happened.

12:24 PM - 14 May 2013


Brit Hume ✔ @brithume

Carney: Pres. has duty to ensure leaks are investigated.
As for the AP case, he knew nothing & trying to find out would be "inappropriate."

12:42 PM - 14 May 2013

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/14/zing-brit-hume-places-odds-on-carneys-repetition-sweepstakes-blasts-excuses/

[pepperpot]

Jay Carney believes that just because he and Jesus Christ share the same initials, it means he can walk on water too! :lol

[Jolie Rouge]

Holder not sure how many times he’s seized press records
11:14 AM 05/15/2013

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he isn’t sure how many times he’s seized reporters’ records. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

“I’m not sure how many of those cases … I have actually signed off on,” Holder said in an interview with NPR’s Carrie Johnson. “I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications.”

Holder’s answer serves as confirmation that the Justice Department’s secret seizure of The Associated Press’s phone records is not an isolated incident. Though the decision to subpoena information from media organizations normally falls to Holder, he insists that he recused himself from the AP case, leaving Deputy Attorney General James Cole to make the decision.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/holder-not-sure-how-many-times-hes-seized-press-records/#ixzz2TNWwNFF7

[Jolie Rouge]

DOJ sought to surveil several thousand U.S. citizens in 2012

1:35 AM 05/16/2013
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/doj-sought-to-surveil-several-thousand-u-s-citizens-in-2012/#ixzz2TTQtm5kw
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/doj-sought-to-surveil-several-thousand-u-s-citizens-in-2012/

[Jolie Rouge]

Please read the following brief assessment below of just how clear the Obama White House has revealed either its complete complicity in at least one of the many quite serious administrative scandals that are now ongoing, OR, Barack Obama is the most detached and incompetent president to have ever been elected to the office of president, and should resign on such incompetence immediately as he is not mentally fit to be President of the United States…

Please watch this video beginning at the 1:20 mark where Eric Holder explained yesterday that the motivation to seize Associated Press communications records was based upon “A very-very serious leak. Among the most serious leaks – it put American people at risk.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnbxBsR6zok&feature=player_embedded

Now read the following excerpt from White House Spokesman Jay Carney explaining WHEN Barack Obama learned of the Associated Press-Department of Justice communications scandal:


Q When did the President find out about the Department of Justice’s subpoenas for the Associated Press?

MR. CARNEY: Yesterday. Let me just be clear. We don’t have any independent knowledge of that. He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/363883.html

So please now consider this reader – the Attorney General of the United States of America publicly informs the media that there was such a significant threat to American security that it required the Department of Justice to revoke the First Amendment rights of a significant media source.

And yet, despite that significant threat to American security, the White House then indicates Barack Obama HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT THREAT or the attempt to remedy that threat. That he in fact just learned of his own Department of Justice’s potentially illegal actions against the Associated Press.

NO WAY.

The Obama White House is placing lies atop lies now at such a pace they cannot even coordinate them on a daily basis.

Either Barack Obama did in fact know of his DOJ’s actions against the media, and then had his administration lie about it, or he has an administration that does not even bother to inform him of a significant threat to the United States.

So which is it Obama White House? And at this point does it even matter? You have now made it clear to the American people you are a repeated liar, an absolute incompetent – or both. -UM

http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/05/15/breaking-obama-white-house-just-caught-in-huge-liecontradiction-see-proof-here/

[Jolie Rouge]

http://mudlmag.com/mudlmag/wp-content/obama-jokes-i18.jpg

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5040892434842490&pid=1.7

http://stutteringmessiah.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/obama-spending.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

CHILLING REPORT: DOJ dumpster divers spied on Fox News’ James Rosen. It's the Obama Way.

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/20/chilling-report-obamas-doj-spied-on-fox-news-james-rosen-criminalizes-reporting/


Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

Accusing James Rosen of committing crimes - for basic reporting - may be the most dangerous thing the Obama DOJ has done yet

7:23 AM - 20 May 2013


Mike Finnerty @finnertymike

“Getting a lot more dangerous," @ggreenwald on Obama Admin pursuing journalists http://trib.al/xVRSVbd

7:45 AM - 20 May 2013


Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

Who will be the first progressive pundit
to defend the criminalization of James Rosen's report
by the Obama DOJ
or argue it's no big deal?

7:41 AM - 20 May 2013


Jamie Dupree ✔ @jamiedupree

Really interesting story in the WashPost today
about another leak probe
http://wapo.st/13Bkf5U

7:21 AM - 20 May 2013


RB @RBPundit

WTF? RT @BrianWilsonDC:
Another case of reporter being tracked
-- this time from Fox news.
http://bit.ly/10PGJPO

7:35 AM - 20 May 2013

That’s right: The Department of Justice probed and tracked Fox News’ James Rosen.


Pete Mc @MeanMrPete

The Justice Department targeted James Rosen of Fox,
broke into his personal email account
and tracked his movements:(

8:06 AM - 20 May 2013


Michael Calderone @mlcalderone

Here's the @JamesRosenFNC story from June 2009 that's at center of leak case: http://bit.ly/16JCTyO

7:59 AM - 20 May 2013


Ron Fournier @ron_fournier

#Obama administration tracked FOX News reporter via key card and seized personal emails. #Chilling @ap
@JoeNBC http://m.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html …

6:20 AM - 20 May 2013

The Washington Post has more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html


They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails.

The case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the government adviser, and James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press.



John Nolte @NolteNC

WaPo totally played down the fact the DOJ dug into Rosen's emails.
But that's why the Good Lord invented New Media.

7:27 AM - 20 May 2013

Glenn Greenwald has more in his article at The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality


New revelations emerged yesterday in the Washington Post that are perhaps the most extreme yet when it comes to the DOJ’s attacks on press freedoms. It involves the prosecution of State Department adviser Stephen Kim, a naturalized citizen from South Korea who was indicted in 2009 for allegedly telling Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, that US intelligence believed North Korea would respond to additional UN sanctions with more nuclear tests – something Rosen then reported. Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist – something done every day in Washington – and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for “espionage”.

The focus of the Post’s report yesterday is that the DOJ’s surveillance of Rosen, the reporter, extended far beyond even what they did to AP reporters. The FBI tracked Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, traced the timing of his calls, and – most amazingly – obtained a search warrant to read two days worth of his emails, as well as all of his emails with Kim. In this case, said the Post, “investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.” It added that “court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist”.

Unbelievable. To put the icing on the disturbing cake, the DOJ accused Rosen of committing crimes in order to obtain the warrants. The crime of doing his job.

Seriously.

Citizens are rightly outraged.

Forward! Into thuggery.

What say you, President Obama?

Here's Dana Priest explaining to Bill Bennett on MTP in 2006: it's not illegal to report classified information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tl_TqW3R9eA


http://twitchy.com/2013/05/20/chilling-report-obamas-doj-spied-on-fox-news-james-rosen-criminalizes-reporting/

[pepperpot]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... LOOK! Michelle's garden sprouted a tomato! :sheep: :pepsi:

[Jolie Rouge]

See also : http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/662428-national-security-leaks.html
http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/512117-nytimes-blabbermouths-strike-again.html
http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/502503-patriot-act-civil-liberties-violations-investigated.html


Fox News Reporter James Rosen May Face Criminal Charges for Reporting on the CIA
By Philip Bump | The Atlantic Wire – 14 hrs ag

The government will use any and all information at its disposal to find journalist sources, as shown in The Washington Post's report this morning on a Department of Justice investigation into Fox News chief correspondent James Rosen, who may face criminal charges for reporting government secrets.

RELATED: Can Conservative Media Stomach Another Week of Weinergate?

In June 2009, Rosen reported on CIA analysis suggesting that North Korea might respond to new UN sanctions with renewed nuclear tests. In order to determine how Rosen learned of the analysis, which had been issued by the CIA only a few hours prior, FBI investigators used every tool at their disposal: analyzing Rosen's security access card to determine when he entered and left the State Department building, studying his phone records, and subpoenaing his personal email.

Ultimately, agents determined the source of the leak was likely the State Department's Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Rosen and Kim established a high-tech version of the red-flag-in-a-planter system used by Bob Woodward during Watergate: when Kim wanted to meet, he would allegedly send an email to Rosen's Gmail account containing an asterisk. Rosen detailed the sorts of things he wanted to discuss.


He also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

According to the Post report, that's what Kim allegedly provided. And the way in which he did so appears to have been indiscreet. Their federally distributed security passes showed that Rosen and Kim left and returned to a building at the same time on the day of the leak. Kim's department phone records showed a number of calls between him and Rosen. When you work directly for Big Brother, you're likely to be caught.

That aside, the most alarming detail is the implication for Rosen. Another tool the FBI wants to use to make an example in this case is a federal indictment of the journalist.


[FBI agent Reginald] Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target.


Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a “covert communications plan” and quoted from an email exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information.

The United States government wants to charge a reporter for reporting on classified information. By agreeing to authorize a search warrant in the case, the Post reports, the judge overseeing the case agreed with the FBI that Rosen might be a conspirator. Whether or not someone in Kim's position should receive whistleblower protection for revealing a state secret is one debate. Whether or not the person that hears the whistle should be charged is another issue altogether.

Linking the Kim case to Julian Assange, similarly investigated for sharing information leaked to him, The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald writes:


Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.

Over the weekend, the CEO of the Associated Press, Gary Pruitt, was interviewed on CBS' Face the Nation. Pruitt indicated that Justice's recently revealed investigation into a 2012 leak is causing existing sources to balk.


Already, officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that they're a little reluctant to talk to us. They fear that they-- they will be monitored by the government.

How and when the government can seize records form the media is tightly described. As in the case of the AP, the Obama Justice Department has proven more than willing to try to loosen those restrictions. Now we learn that the idea includes extending the chilling effect of prosecutions to the reporters trying to hold them accountable.

http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-may-face-criminal-133347923.html

[Jolie Rouge]

See http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/512117-nytimes-blabbermouths-strike-again.html

No Bush warrant for e-mail correspondence of NYTimes reporters
Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:47 am - May 21, 2013.


At Powerline, John Hinderaker explores whether the Obama White House was justified in obtaining “access to Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email account“. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/dojs-fox-news-surveillance-legitimate-leak-investigation-or-outrageous-violation-of-the-first-amendment.php That lawyer notes that Republican politicians and conservative pundits sought to prosecute the New York Times (for, as John puts it, “publishing leaked information about Bush’s anti-terror strategies”) under the same statute the Obama team used to snoop on Rosen. At the conclusion of his post, Hinderaker concedes that he is “not enough of a criminal lawyer to have an opinion on whether the warrant should have been issued on this weak showing. ”

Just read the whole thing for his thorough analysis.

Interesting that although the Rosen piece which spurred their investigation was published nearly four full years ago (on June 11, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/north-korea-intends-match-resolution-new-nuclear-test/ ), the Department of Justice has yet to bring charges against Rosen. (Would be interesting to find out how long it took for the Justice Department to inform the FoxNews reporter about their investigation.)

Another thing to consider (as per my previous post http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/21/did-w-or-his-minions-snoop-on-what-books-his-political-adversaries-were-reading/ ) is that despite the claims many of the immediate past president’s critics made about that good man, his administration did not snoop around in the private affairs of its ideological adversaries 0r adversary journalists. Despite serious concerns that New York Times reporting compromised administration efforts to keep us safe, the Bush team did not attempt to obtain the e-mails of that paper’s reporters.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/21/no-bush-warrant-for-e-mail-correspondence-of-nytimes-reporters/

[Jolie Rouge]

Here is 2008 video of candidate Obama saying, in essence, that a sitting administration must not prosecute or spy on reporters and critics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wBsTEL4NaZU


Another? CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson says her work and personal computers have been compromised
By Doug Powers • May 21, 2013 12:41 PM

CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has been doing a lot of digging. http://twitchy.com/?s=sharyl+attkisson It would appear that somebody might be curious about her sources — either that or they were trying to steal her Angry Birds password: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/sharyl-attkissons-computers-compromised-164456.html


“I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,” Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. “I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.”
[...]
Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration’s green energy spending, which she said “the administration was very sensitive about.” Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year’s attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.

Though there’s still no final determination on who compromised Attkisson’s computers or in what way, it comes hot on the heels of news that the Justice Department spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen, as well as two of Rosen’s colleagues. http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/20/the-obama-way-doj-dumpster-divers-spied-on-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen/

As much as the DOJ has been in the news for seizing electronic records of reporters, I won’t assume they had any direct hand in this. The brother of Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor is the president of CBS News. http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/13/obama-administration-media-relative/ If the Obama administration wanted something from Attkisson, maybe they could have just asked the network to get it for them.

Just to be safe though, investigative journalists might want to switch to using only pencils, notepads and Selectric typewriters until the dust settles.

Audio of Attkisson discussing this on the Chris Stigall show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOQ6UEO7Ofg&feature=player_embedded

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/21/cbs-news-sharyl-attkisson-computers-compromised/

[Jolie Rouge]

Official: Holder Approved Warrant for Fox News Reporter's Emails

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/23/Official-Holder-Approved-Warrant-for-Fox-News-Reporter-s-Emails

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s480x480/945201_375816489191807_719635381_n.jpg

Holder gets to investigate his own criminal activity in the James Rosen/Fox News case. That's how they roll in DC: we're all Chicagoans now! The lawless run the place and your founding documents are the victims, you are under their boot.

The mob only wish they'd had it this good, ya know? ~jg

Official: Holder Approved Warrant for Fox News Reporter's Emails
by ELIZABETH SHELD 23 May 2013

From BREITBART NEWS link is below:

A law enforcement official has told NBC News that Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who signed the search warrant for the private emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen. The warrant was signed under the guise that Rosen might be a "possible co-consiprator" in violation of the Espionage Act.

The law enforcement official said Holder's approval of the Rosen search, in the spring of 2010, came after senior Justice officials concluded there was "probable cause" that Rosen's communications with his source, identified as intelligence analyst Stephen Kim, met the legal burden for such searches. "It was approved at the highest levels-- and I mean the highest," said the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said that explicitly included Holder.

The affidavit submitted to Google stated Rosen had "asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information." It went on to describe that Rosen had employed "flattery and [was] playing to Mr. Kim's vanity and ego."

It also said that Google was specifically instructed not to notify “the subscriber” -- Rosen -- that his emails were being seized. In new documents disclosed Thursday, the Justice Department sought and obtained approval to keep the search warrant, which was approved by a federal magistrate, under seal.

Officials have since said they do not intend to criminally charge Rosen.

Holder, the man who signed the warrant for Rosen's private emails, will "convene" a group of media organizations to garner feedback and will report back to Obama by July 12.
--
(((snicker))) *GEE, wonder what the outcome of the "feedback" will be!*

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/23/Official-Holder-Approved-Warrant-for-Fox-News-Reporter-s-Emails

SEE ALSO: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

[Jolie Rouge]

We already have a "media shield law". It's called the First Amendment.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s480x480/922787_10151429231116336_878839893_n.jpg


"Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That’s why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach." –President Obama

FULL TRANSCRIPT: http://tinyurl.com/q8qdk9q

President Obama Speaks About Fighting Terrorists, Drones, Gitmo
by Fox News Insider// May 23 2013 // 2:25pm

President Obama spoke this afternoon on the future of the fight against terrorism and his controversial policy on drone strikes. Here's the full transcript of his remarks, as prepared for delivery, at National Defense University in Washington.


It's an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791- standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.
For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to Constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won't review the full history. What's clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and - to this day - our interests in a vital region.


Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses - hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values - by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda's leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions - about the nature of today's threats, and how we should confront them.

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation - and world - that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison's warning that "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do - what we must do - is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.
.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/23/transcript-president-obama-speaks-about-fighting-terrorists-drones-gitmo#ixzz2UE0tIZJ5

[Jolie Rouge]

continues ....


Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we've seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda's affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula - AQAP -the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP's efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.

Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives - in loose affiliation with regional networks - launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City - America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals - often U.S. citizens or legal residents - can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology - a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' - but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That's how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That's how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That's how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places - such as parts of Somalia and Yemen - the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians- where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces - but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan - and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory - was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

[Jolie Rouge]

continues ....




It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions - about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don't take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden's compound, we found that he wrote, "we could lose the reserves to the enemy's air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives." Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America's actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war - a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power - or risk abusing it. That's why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists - insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose - our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals - we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured - the highest standard we can set.


...



This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes - at home and abroad - understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties - not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places -like Sana'a and Kabul and Mogadishu - where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I've said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services - and indeed, have no functioning law.

[Jolie Rouge]

and continues ...




This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

For this reason, I've insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that - not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen - with a drone, or a shotgun - without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America - and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot - his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

That's who Anwar Awlaki was - he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab - the Christmas Day bomber - went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn't. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.

Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes - which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups - even against a sworn enemy of the United States - is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that's been suggested - the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch - avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these - and other - options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war - through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments - will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.





So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. As we've learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya - because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements - because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians - because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship - because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples' hopes, and not simply their fears.

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures - even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world's most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

[Jolie Rouge]

and still going ...



As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community - which has consistently rejected terrorism - to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That's why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that - even after Boston - we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact - in sometimes unintended ways - the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

[Jolie Rouge]

... and I think this will wrap it up ...


The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands.

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO - that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention - was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people -almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home.

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress's support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration's relentless pursuit of al Qaeda's leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted - for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.
I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future - ten years from now, or twenty years from now - when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?

Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, "the way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties." He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom - "That flag," he said, "will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom."

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, "That's my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on." I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened. I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, "we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off." I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs. I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, "Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with."

That's who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy - and a politics -that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won't be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear - that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world's memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history - the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America

[Jolie Rouge]

The far left Huffington Post is calling for Eric Holder to step down! Can't believe we actually agree with them on something!! But can we make one request? He needs to take Obama with him!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/945204_522718981116925_279491263_n.png

[Jolie Rouge]

DOJ told Fox News parent company of phone records probe
By Meghashyam Mali - 05/26/13 06:22 AM ET

The parent corporation of Fox News was aware three years ago that one of its reporters was being investigated by the Justice Department (DOJ) in a leak probe, according to a report. CNN reported Saturday http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/25/sources-fox-news-knew-of-phone-records-subpoena-three-years-ago/ that a law enforcement source said the DOJ notified a media organization that they had sought detailed phone records from a reporter. A second source identified that media group as Fox.


A Fox News executive told CNN, however, that while the parent company, News Corporation, knew of the subpoena in May 2010, Fox News management were not informed.

The DOJ has faced criticism for its targeting of journalists who reported on classified information.

The DOJ was probing Fox Washington correspondent James Rosen after he wrote a story in 2009 claiming that U.S. intelligence officials believed North Korea would likely test more nuclear weapons. Rosen said the CIA analysis was based on sources inside North Korea, setting off a DOJ search for the leak’s source.

The department later identified State Department employee Stephen Jin-Woo Kim as the source of the leak. Kim could face federal charges for disclosing classified information.

Officials expanded the investigation of Rosen from phone records to also cover emails and track his visits to the State Department. Reports last week revealed that the warrant allowing the DOJ to spy on him was signed personally by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Legal documents from the DOJ tagged Rosen as a “criminal co-conspirator” in their leak probe.

The DOJ also asked a federal judge to keep Rosen in the dark indefinitely about the probe as they continued to track his emails.

Reports suggested that while the DOJ notified Fox’s parent company about the phone records seizure, they did not disclose the search of Rosen’s email.

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes on Thursday blasted the DOJ’s actions on Thursday, comparing them to the McCarthy era, and accusing the government of trying to “intimidate Fox News and its employees.”

In a separate leak investigation, the DOJ also secretly subpoenaed the phone records of more than 20 Associated Press journalists.

Holder has vowed to review the DOJ’s handling of leak probes and report his findings next month.

The House Judiciary Committee has launched its own investigation into the matter.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/301995-report-doj-told-fox-news-parent-company-of-phone-records-probe#ixzz2UX7MYFxb

[Jolie Rouge]

Sen. Coburn: Holder investigating DOJ a ‘total conflict of interest’
By Keith Laing - 05/26/13 12:05 PM ET

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Sunday said that Attorney General Eric Holder should not be in charge of investigating the Justice Department’s (DOJ) seizure of communication records of journalists who reported on classified information. “You cannot investigate yourself,” said Coburn on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “I think it’s a total conflict of interest.”

President Obama has stated that Holder is investigating claims that the DOJ overreached in its efforts to tamp down on leaks of confidential information.

Coburn stopped short of calling for special prosecutor to look into the claims that the DOJ breach reporters’ rights to privacy, as some Republicans lawmakers have done, however. But he insisted that someone other than Holder should lead the review. “It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t investigate it,” Coburn said. “And it shouldn’t mean we shouldn’t be tough on that. But allowing the very person that authorized the two things that we are aware today to investigate whether or not he did that appropriately is inappropriate.

“I think we need to separate it from the attorney general, since the decisions were made by him or under him,” Coburn continued. “There’s an inherent conflict of interest in me judging whether or not I did something and reporting to the president.”

The criticism of the DOJ stems from an investigation of Fox News’s Washington correspondent James Rosen after he wrote a story in 2009 claiming that U.S. intelligence officials believed North Korea would likely test more nuclear weapons.

The agency allegedly kept track of Rosen’s phone records and visits to the State Department to trace the source of the leak.

Rosen was also dubbed a potential “criminal co-conspirator” in a warrant signed by Holder to allow law enforcement to seize the reporter’s private emails.

In a separate leak investigation, the DOJ also secretly seized over two months of phone records of Associated Press reporters.

The moves have led to congressional anger and vows to better defend press freedoms.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302027-sen-coburn-holder-investigating-doj-a-total-conflict-of-interest#ixzz2UX80KDzA

[Jolie Rouge]

Bam! Fox News’ Martha MacCallum slams Obama admin with key question
Posted at 8:56 am on May 26, 2013 by Twitchy Staff


martha maccallum ✔ @marthamaccallum

As a "national security risk" who got more time and attention, #Rosen or #Tsarnaev ?

8:44 AM - 25 May 2013

Boom.

Twitchy has reported extensively on the DOJ’s targeting of Fox News’ James Rosen. http://twitchy.com/?s=james+rosen National security risk? How much time and energy was spent on the chilling attempted criminalization of James Rosen for doing his job? http://twitchy.com/2013/05/20/chilling-report-obamas-doj-spied-on-fox-news-james-rosen-criminalizes-reporting/ Actual national security risks are no big whoop! We must take care of these nefarious journalists first.

Fox News’ Martha MacCallum took to Twitter to ask that key, and frightening, question.

Nailed it, Ms. MacCallum. Citizens agree.



martha maccallum ✔ @marthamaccallum
As a "national security risk" who got more time and attention, #Rosen or #Tsarnaev ? Jay Langley @N4NRL

@marthamaccallum outstanding question ! All that will be heard are crickets I am sad to say.

9:27 AM - 25 May 2013


Deetz @tahDeetz

@SissyWillis @marthamaccallum
Rosen could do more damage - to Obama, so he got the attention.

9:40 AM - 25 May 2013

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/26/bam-fox-news-martha-maccallum-slams-obama-admin-with-key-question/

[Jolie Rouge]

Eric Holder’s Not Sorry; He’s Sorry He Got Caught
Posted 05.28.13 by Todd Cefaratti, Editor of TPNN

Every parent knows that obligatory “I’m sorry.” The apology that comes from a child immediately after having been caught red-handed doing something they know is wrong is often countered with, “You’re not sorry; you’re sorry that you got caught.”

Now, aides are claiming that Attorney General Eric Holder is feeling “remorse” for his unconstitutional vendetta against a member of the press. He’s not sorry; he’s sorry he got caught.

Holder has been under fire for the egregious abuses of power perpetrated by him and his office. The Justice Department who, ironically, seems uninterested in justice, has been targeting Associated Press reporters by monitoring their phone calls. However, even worse for the scandal-embroiled Attorney General was the revelation that the Justice Department had also sought and obtained a warrant to seize the personal emails of Fox News Washington Correspondent James Rosen.

But the abuse didn’t stop there; to secure the flimsy warrant, the Justice Department went judge shopping to try and get the warrant. After being turned down by two separate judges who could assign no probable cause or criminality, the third judge finally gave in and Holder had his warrant.

To gain the warrant, Holder and his Justice Department had to make the outrageous claim that Rosen was a “co-conspirator” in the leaking of classified national security information. Because Rosen had done what reporters are supposed to do, the Justice Department made up the claim that he was a co-conspirator.

Because Rosen heard the information that a State Department official was willing to say, the Justice Department had the audacity to claim that Rosen had engaged in criminal activity. By that logic, if I listen to “Eleanor Rigby” that means I helped write it. I eagerly await the royalties from Paul McCartney and the Lennon estate…

According to an article in The Daily Beast, Holder’s aides say he has felt “a creeping sense of personal remorse” over his personal signing-off on the affidavit to target Rosen. The affidavit was signed in 2009 and he has had four years to come to terms with his role in targeting the free press. But now that his hand is caught in the cookie jar, he’s sorry. I don’t buy it.

I didn’t buy it when Clinton was cornered and claimed that he was sorry and I don’t believe a word that comes from the mouth of the top lawyer in the country who makes all others look truthful by comparison.

We, as Americans, deserve better than what we’re getting. While we can share part of the blame for allowing this administration to continue, we cannot be faulted for the Kremlin-esque policies for which this administration has become known.

http://www.tpnn.com/eric-holders-not-sorry-hes-sorry-he-got-caught/

[Jolie Rouge]

Fox News’ Martha MacCallum blasts Holder, pathetic Daily Beast puff piece
Posted at 1:39 pm on May 28, 2013 by Twitchy Staff


martha maccallum ✔ @marthamaccallum

@dailybeast Eric Holder feels a "creeping sense of remorse" re: #Rosen :'(


9:21 AM - 28 May 2013

As Twitchy readers know, MacCallum’s tweets pack a punch. http://twitchy.com/2013/05/26/bam-fox-news-martha-maccallum-slams-obama-admin-with-key-question/ Today, Martha MacCallum was not impressed by The Daily Beast’s pro-Holder spin in the form of an alleged article titled, “Holder’s Regrets and Repairs.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/28/holder-s-regrets-and-repairs.html You see, he really didn’t mean to spy on James Rosen http://twitchy.com/2013/05/20/chilling-report-obamas-doj-spied-on-fox-news-james-rosen-criminalizes-reporting/ ... other Fox News staffers http://twitchy.com/2013/05/20/bombshell-not-just-rosen-a-livid-megyn-kelly-reports-more-at-fox-news-targeted-by-doj/ ... or James Rosen’s parents http://twitchy.com/2013/05/21/outrageous-did-justice-department-seize-phone-records-of-james-rosens-parents/ And he has some “creeping remorse” for, you know, signing the search warrant to authorize such snooping. http://twitchy.com/2013/05/23/nbc-eric-holder-signed-off-on-criminal-investigation-of-fox-news-james-rosen/


martha maccallum ✔ @marthamaccallum

RT/This is the best pro-Holder spin available? He's in trouble. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/28/holder-s-regrets-and-repairs.html … …

8:41 AM - 28 May 2013


Infidel •كافر @dap1510

@marthamaccallum Who the h - e - l - l cares about how Holder "sees himself" or his self-serving remorse? What matters are his actions.

9:05 AM - 28 May 2013


Jacqué Stoddard @jacquestoddard

@marthamaccallum Maybe when Holder Q's himself during @JamesRosenFNC investigation he'll tell himself he knew nothing until he saw it on#Fox

8:52 AM - 28 May 2013

Heh. Remember, Attorney General Holder testified that he is a know-nothing like President Obama. They have no clue what is going on, ever, until they see it on the news or read it in the newspapers! http://twitchy.com/2013/05/15/know-nothings-holder-echoes-obama-we-totally-find-out-stuff-when-we-read-it-in-newspaper/

Twitter users spread the mockery love to encompass the pitiful Daily Beast and its puff piece, which basically amounted to “but, but he’s sorry and stuff! Can’t you forgive, meany pants people?”

More from Legal Insurrection: http://networkedblogs.com/LDAMp


… But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department’s—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves. “Look, Eric sees himself fundamentally as a progressive, not some Torquemada out to silence the press,” says a friend who asked not to be identified….

In an interview, Holder acknowledged that there was considerable room for improvement in how Justice handles leak cases, casting the episode as a kind of teaching moment for his department and himself….

Read the rest: http://networkedblogs.com/LDAMp It would be hilarious if it weren’t so shake fisty. He’s totally going on a media “charm offensive,” guys!


To begin the process of recalibrating that balance, Holder is initiating a dialogue with representatives of major media organizations. Invitations go out today, with the first meeting taking place possibly as early as this week. Holder’s aides say he is encouraging a no-holds-barred conversation with the goal of updating and strengthening DOJ guidelines. But Holder’s own personal soul searching has already begun, with, among other things, the question of why he signed off on an affidavit that in retrospect he believed may have crossed the line.

That changes everything!

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/28/fox-news-martha-maccallum-blasts-holder-pathetic-daily-beast-puff-piece/

[Jolie Rouge]

No Holiday From Obama Scandals:
News Corp. Says It Wasn’t Told of Subpoena for Rosen’s Phone Records
Posted by Jammie on May 27, 2013 at 11:09 am

Gee, you mean Team Obama and that thug Eric Holder were lying?

Imagine that.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/business/media/news-corp-says-it-was-not-told-of-subpoena-for-reporters-phone-records.html?_r=2&

News Corporation said on Sunday that it had no record of being notified by the Justice Department nearly three years ago of a subpoena for the telephone records of a reporter at its Fox News cable channel.

The company’s chief legal counsel at the time also said that he had never seen material from the government related to the subpoena.

The Justice Department has signaled that it notified News Corporation on Aug. 27, 2010, that it had seized the phone records of a Fox News reporter — who turned out to be the Washington correspondent James Rosen — after one of his articles had included details of a secret United States report on North Korea.

The seizure was part of the department’s case against Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department contractor investigated in connection with the North Korea leak. Mr. Kim has pleaded not guilty to leaking information and is awaiting trial. Fox News has denied that it knew about the subpoena, while Justice Department officials have said they sent notification 90 days after obtaining the records.

A law enforcement official said on Sunday that in the investigation that led to the indictment of Mr. Kim, “the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media.” This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, added, “Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures, the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile and e-mail.”

A Fox News executive said the channel had never heard of the Justice Department investigation and had no knowledge of New Corporation ever being notified. A News Corporation spokesman said Sunday that the company was looking into the matter of notification. “While we don’t take issue with the D.O.J.’s account that they sent a notice to News Corp., we do not have a record of ever having received it,” Nathaniel Brown, the spokesman, said.


Guess it was lost in the mail.

http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/no-holiday-from-obama-scandals-news-corp-says-it-wast-told-of-subpoena-for-rosens-phone-records/

comments

Which means they lied to the Federal Court.

...

Which means that they’re throwing a bone to their friends (useful idiots). They’re making it a contest between obama thugs and the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll ‘faux news’. As if notifying the news outlet (one of the provisions that should have been followed) really matters when they went after his parent’s records, and they STILL haven’t explain why the leaks that made captain kickass look good (suxnet) were not investigated.

....

My dog ate my homework.

...

It is a hoot that Holder’s Justice is using anonymous leaks to imply they think they probably followed the law when after-bugging reporter’s phones ostensibly to catch anonymous leakers.

Meanwhile, the NewsCorp folks are all going on record in their own names in public to say no, they never heard from Holder’s Justice Dept.

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/943602_603811146304568_1016859020_n.png

[Jolie Rouge]

Attorney General Eric Holder signed the original warrant in the Rosen case personally, NBC News reported. After initially saying he did not know anything about it (PERJURY!), Eric Holder finally admitted that he did!

We need a FULL investigation of how an Attorney General cannot only LIE to Congress, but help to rewrite the U.S. Constitution that guarantees “freedom of the press.”


Holder Targets Fox News; 1st Amendment at Stake
Posted on June 11 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder is tied directly to the Obama administration's targeting of a Fox News reporter. The Justice Department confirmed that Holder personally approved a search warrant for the e-mails of Fox reporter James Rosen; that warrant labeled Rosen a "co-conspirator" in an investigation of a government leak.

The Washington Post reports: “News of the (DOJ) probe (into Rosen) came right after revelations about the Justice Department’s secret subpoena of phone records for the Associated Press, raising questions about the appropriateness of the federal government’s snooping on the media, as well as the fitness of Attorney General Eric Holder to continue in his post.”

This is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Here is what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Attorney General Eric Holder signed the original warrant in the Rosen case personally, NBC News reported.

After initially saying he did not know anything about it (PERJURY!), Eric Holder finally admitted that he did!

Roger Ailes, Fox News President, charged: “The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.”

President Barack Obama asked Holder to review DOJ guidelines on leak investigations and news organizations. Holder promised a report by July 12.

Although there have been renewed calls for Eric Holder to resign, President Obama stood by the embattled attorney general.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, told the press corp. said, “It appears Holder testified truthfully.”

What??

He said President Obama “absolutely” has confidence in him.

But certainly not the top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee! They openly challenged Attorney General Eric Holder over his testimony three weeks ago in which he claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press, despite knowing about the investigation that targeted the Fox News reporter.

Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., (R-WI) voiced "great concern" in a letter to Holder. They asked many questions about the department's dealings with the press, and pointedly alleged that the Fox News case "contradicts" his testimony at a May 15 hearing.

"It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement," they wrote.

Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, Holder insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or knew about.

But days later, details emerged that the Justice Department did obtain access to the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen — after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea. Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act.

"The media reports and statements issued by the Department regarding the search warrants for Mr. Rosen's emails appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the Committee," Goodlatte and Sensenbrenner wrote in the letter to the attorney general. They did not accuse Holder of committing perjury, but noted he was "under oath."

As do we, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called for a special counsel to investigate the Justice Department’s subpoena of Rosen’s phone records saying the attorney general cannot impartially review a decision that he approved. That’s why your fax is absolutely necessary now!

“This is clearly an overreach,” Graham said on Fox News Sunday. “James Rosen is a lot of things, but a criminal co-conspirator he is not. We’re beginning to criminalize journalism and I think that should worry us all.”

Standard DOJ guidelines are that organizations will receive a subpoena. News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, said it is still reviewing whether it has any record of a notification from the United States government involving a subpoena for a Fox News reporter’s phone or email records. Fox News has said it never received a notification from the government.

Fox News reports: “One of the country's most prominent liberal legal scholars called for Holder to be ‘fired,’ joining the growing list of left-leaning pundits slamming his department's pursuit of journalists' phone and email records.

“Jonathan Turley, an attorney and law professor at George Washington University, hammered Holder in a USA Today column. He charged that Holder has ‘supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process,’ aided by Democrats who looked the other way. “But in the wake of the reporter records scandal, Democrats are starting to join with Republicans in questioning whether Holder continues to be the right man to lead the Department of Justice in President Obama's second term.

“Turley, in his column, referenced a recent call by the Republican National Committee chairman for Holder's resignation. ‘Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired,’ Turley wrote.”

We could not agree more!

Americans are sick and tired of being lied to by top law enforcement person in the United States! Fast and Furious gun-running . . . IRS Scandal . . . Fox News Reporter Privacy Invasion . . . NSA Scandal—it must be either very difficult or real easy when an attorney general has to lie all the time. Yes – PERJURY is the word!


http://www.conservative-daily.com/2013/06/11/holder-targets-fox-news-1st-amendment-at-stake/

[Jolie Rouge]

Sen. Coburn: Holder investigating DOJ a ‘total conflict of interest’
By Keith Laing - 05/26/13 12:05 PM ET

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Sunday said that Attorney General Eric Holder should not be in charge of investigating the Justice Department’s (DOJ) seizure of communication records of journalists who reported on classified information. “You cannot investigate yourself,” said Coburn on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “I think it’s a total conflict of interest.”

President Obama has stated that Holder is investigating claims that the DOJ overreached in its efforts to tamp down on leaks of confidential information.

Coburn stopped short of calling for special prosecutor to look into the claims that the DOJ breach reporters’ rights to privacy, as some Republicans lawmakers have done, however. But he insisted that someone other than Holder should lead the review. “It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t investigate it,” Coburn said. “And it shouldn’t mean we shouldn’t be tough on that. But allowing the very person that authorized the two things that we are aware today to investigate whether or not he did that appropriately is inappropriate.

“I think we need to separate it from the attorney general, since the decisions were made by him or under him,” Coburn continued. “There’s an inherent conflict of interest in me judging whether or not I did something and reporting to the president.”

The criticism of the DOJ stems from an investigation of Fox News’s Washington correspondent James Rosen after he wrote a story in 2009 claiming that U.S. intelligence officials believed North Korea would likely test more nuclear weapons.

The agency allegedly kept track of Rosen’s phone records and visits to the State Department to trace the source of the leak.

Rosen was also dubbed a potential “criminal co-conspirator” in a warrant signed by Holder to allow law enforcement to seize the reporter’s private emails.

In a separate leak investigation, the DOJ also secretly seized over two months of phone records of Associated Press reporters.

The moves have led to congressional anger and vows to better defend press freedoms.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302027-sen-coburn-holder-investigating-doj-a-total-conflict-of-interest#ixzz2UX80KDzA

What a crock of s**t. Do the Obama cronies believe that any of us actually trust the DOJ now in any capacity. If there is a need for investigation and oversight it is here, for Obama and his cronies are now acting out of complete BS and disregard for the law. People need to be held accountable, heads need to roll, starting with Holder. Until a review and oversight is done by an authority outside of the DOJ and executive branch, the Republican House needs to either completely withhold funding of the DOJ or place strict stipulations on any funding going to that branch.


Obama accepts Holder’s investigation of Holder
July 13, 2013 by Tom Tillson

While most of the nation was focused on the conclusion of the George Zimmerman trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with President Obama on Friday to report on the outcome of his investigation of Eric Holder.





Obama said in May that Holder would launch the review amid criticism of the Justice Department’s seizure of records belonging to The Associated Press and Fox News, as well as the labeling of Fox News reporter James Rosen as a criminal “co-conspirator,” a ruse used to seize his personal emails, according to The Hill.





Holder signed the warrant that named Rosen a co-conspirator, giving agents access to his personal email account and allowing them to track not only his phone records but his parents’, too.





The White House said Obama “accepted” the report, which is expected to contain new guidelines limiting the circumstances under which the Justice Department could obtain journalists’ records.

Holder released a statement later in the day that included the formation of a “Ministry of Truth,” as described by Twitchy.com. The statement said, in part:

If a determination is made by the attorney general to delay notification for an initial 45-day period, only the attorney general may authorize a delay of notification for up to an additional 45 days, and even then, only if the attorney general again determines, after an additional review by the News Media Review Committee, that, for compelling reasons, notice would post a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation, grave harm to national security, or imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.

The gist is that government can subpoena reporters’ records but delay informing the media that it has done so for 45 days, but only in the “most exceptional cases,” the Washington Examiner reported.





The News Media Review Committee will comprise “senior Department officials… who are neither directly involved nor play a supervisory role in the investigations involved, [and who] are engaged in the consideration of the use of investigative tools that involve members of the news media,” according to the Examiner.

“The Department of Justice is firmly committed to ensuring our nation’s security, and protecting the American people, while at the same time safeguarding the freedom of the press,” Holder said in the statement.

Just don’t try to convince Rosen of that.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/13/obama-accepts-holders-investigation-of-holder-79603

comments

Just how stupid are the American people?

Obviously, until millions of people start destroying property and pillaging and the like, and Obama gets to use all that hollow point ammo, nothing will change.

With most of the population getting old, there should be a list of useless politicians and agency bureaucrats handed out along with a choice of weapons. It sounds like a win – win deal. If you end up still alive medical care in jail is better than medicare, and if you convince authorities you are a terrorist you get to go to Gitmo Country Club. (if you say you are a muslim they don’t even grope you.)

...

try writing a note on your tax returns….” I have thoroughly investigated my returns….government owes me a million”

..

I’ll bet Eric Holder the Investigator cleared Eric Holder the Attorney General of all wrong doing...

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the Zimmerman trial "isn't over." He said the Justice Department is going to "investigate".

NOT Fast and Furious. NOT the IRS. NOT Benghazi. But a citizen who was acquitted by a jury, after being railroaded by the media and Obama for a year.

Make no mistake, this Administration has declared war on the American people.

Harry Reid on Zimmerman Trial:"This Isn't Over,' DOJ Going to Take a Look"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZKlMYeJE_AM


Martin adopted the 'thug life' lifestyle and paid for it with his life. Let me be clear, I believe Zimmerman is a giant wannabe cop who should have stayed in his vehicle but he did nothing illegal and the prosecution botched it up bad.