U.S. Justice Dept Obtains Wide AP Phone Records in Probe

[BigRedBuster]

I fully understand that you are on board with the thought that their lack of transparency is unacceptable after making the campaign promise.

 

I just found it kind of odd that an attack from the other side would make you less transparent. Not sure how people questioning his birth certificate makes it less likely to make administrative issues more transparent.

[carlfense]

We were promised the most transparent of administrations but we seem to be getting Paint it Black ala the Stones. Bills to be made public, with time to read them before votes? Nope.

I agree. That's been my main criticism of Obama for awhile now.

 

Benghazi investigations still being hampered and resisted and what is being revealed is only confirming original suspicions.

Eh?

 

IRS hassling political adversaries.

How do you tie that to Obama? Or are you just saying that it happened while he was president?

 

Now the Justice department getting over zealous and likely over stepping reasonable boundaries.

We'll see. Looks pretty tame compared to what we've seen in the past.

[knapplc]

I fully understand that you are on board with the thought that their lack of transparency is unacceptable after making the campaign promise.

 

I just found it kind of odd that an attack from the other side would make you less transparent. Not sure how people questioning his birth certificate makes it less likely to make administrative issues more transparent.

 

Let's belabor the point for another four pages then. It was an aside, but I can see it's something you're focused on. Please, forget I said it and forgive me for mentioning it.

[rawhide]

heh, heh, heh

[BigRedBuster]

I fully understand that you are on board with the thought that their lack of transparency is unacceptable after making the campaign promise.

 

I just found it kind of odd that an attack from the other side would make you less transparent. Not sure how people questioning his birth certificate makes it less likely to make administrative issues more transparent.

 

Let's belabor the point for another four pages then. It was an aside, but I can see it's something you're focused on. Please, forget I said it and forgive me for mentioning it.

 

 

Please don't take my comment as antagonistic. I thought your comment was meant to be stronger towards another meaning.

 

It's forgotten.

[Someone]

I love a good politically tainted faux outrage tantrum.

 

Here in this thread we have the following claims:

1. This is a violation of the 1st. [Never know the first amendment allowed for protection of a reporters sources.]
   
2. This is an attempt to intimidate the press to control the flow of information. [There are many attempts to control the flow of information in the name of national security. Is that bad?]
   
3. any sources would be protected under whistle blower laws. [That's a first. A person can leak CIA information about undercover operations and claim they were just whistle blowing?]
   
4. As if this administration gives a damn about Constitutional Rights [What Constitutional Right is in question here?]
   
5. Benghazi investigations still being hampered and resisted. [Really? How?]
   
6. Bills to be made public, with time to read them before votes. [How can the President control the publication of congressional bills or the timing of the related votes.]
   
7. the promise Obama made about posting them and allowing five days for public comment before he signs them into law [Oh. By votes you meant signing them and by public comment you meant give the public a chance to decide if they like what Congress has already passed?]
   
8. Now the Justice department getting over zealous and likely over stepping reasonable boundaries. [so when Bush allowed for 1000's of warrantless phone tapping in ~2005 in the name of national security, that was good but when Obama's DOJ gets a warrant and looks at just phone records, that is overzealous, even if it is to find the source of a leak re: national security.]
   

[carlfense]

On Monday the Associated Press reported that the Justice Department “secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press.” But here’s what’s really scary: The Justice Department’s actions are likely perfectly legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/in-ap-surveillance-case-the-real-scandal-is-whats-legal/

[JJ Husker]

We were promised the most transparent of administrations but we seem to be getting Paint it Black ala the Stones. Bills to be made public, with time to read them before votes? Nope.

I agree. That's been my main criticism of Obama for awhile now.

 

Benghazi investigations still being hampered and resisted and what is being revealed is only confirming original suspicions.

Eh?

 

IRS hassling political adversaries.

How do you tie that to Obama? Or are you just saying that it happened while he was president?

 

Now the Justice department getting over zealous and likely over stepping reasonable boundaries.

We'll see. Looks pretty tame compared to what we've seen in the past.

Look, I know some of you are not as concerned about the Benghazi as some of us are, and certainly not as over concerned as maybe Fox News or Sen. Graham seems to be but, there is no way you can say the administration has been open and forthcoming about the goings on there. Sure, a lot of it has to do with the whole issue being a partisan football but there are some real issues that need to be settled. IMO the order of importance is; 1- Americans were killed 2- We need to examine exactly what happened that allowed this to occur so that we can possibly prevent a reoccurrence. 3- Whether or not it is politically palatable, Americans need to be made aware that possibly this administrations view of world affairs (how to best deal with radical Islam) is potentially naïve. Americans were killed and I believe it could have been prevented, even as late as after the attack started if stand down orders had not been issued. It is now widely known that how to disseminate this information to the public was heavily discussed and manipulated, I can only assume that was done in the interest of the campaign and for political benefit. When those types of things are placed ahead of truth and security, I think we are right to keep hammering on the issue. It really does not matter in the least if Fox News or Graham didn't show the same level of concern about 11 other attacks that occurred on Bush's watch. That only displays those entities inconsistencies and bias and has no bearing on doing the right thing now.

 

I do not necessarily "tie" the IRS thing to Obama and yes, at this point, it is because he was/is President while it occurred. I'm just spit ballin here but I see no way this exact same thing (extra scrutiny of Tea Party and Patriot organizations) happens if a Republican is in the White House. And sure it could of happened with an organization like MoveOn under a repub administration. But the fact that it was Obama in the WH with a dem administration in charge does make it more suspect. If you don't think it does, you are too biased to be honest about it.

 

I guess I don't know how tame or wild the Justice departments actions are but I sure know that is not how the Justice Dept of the United States of America is expected to operate. Surely you do not want them acting with impunity when it comes to things like this. It may turn out to be fairly innocent and mild (tame) but the only thing keeping it from getting out of hand is the added scrutiny it is now receiving.

 

I usually tend to go with the thought that the easiest, most logical explanation is the best way. Unfortunately, this administration, and happenings under it, have been less than transparent and it is way too easy to perceive them as typical Chicago Machine tactics. People can write this all off as left-right dirty politics but, where there is smoke there is usually fire. Right now I would characterize this administration as fully engulfed in flames. We don't need to ease up on them, they need to do something that shows there is, in fact, no fire.

[JJ Husker]

I love a good politically tainted faux outrage tantrum.

 

 

Good for you spanky. I also happen to get a kick out of politically tainted head-in-the sand acceptance. It is amusing to watch people defend this administration no matter the issue. Remember to wipe the brown off your nose and come up for air once in awhile.

[carlfense]

Americans were killed and I believe it could have been prevented, even as late as after the attack started if stand down orders had not been issued.

Huh?

 

I can only assume that was done in the interest of the campaign and for political benefit.

Why is that? It's not hard to think of several plausible possibilities. I'm not sure why you'd jump to the Obama conspiracy conclusion. (Besides . . . prepare for the pivot to Hillary. The GOP won't care too much about Obama in the near future. They care a great deal, and with good reason, about Hillary Clinton.)

 

I guess I don't know how tame or wild the Justice departments actions are but I sure know that is not how the Justice Dept of the United States of America is expected to operate. Surely you do not want them acting with impunity when it comes to things like this. It may turn out to be fairly innocent and mild (tame) but the only thing keeping it from getting out of hand is the added scrutiny it is now receiving.

We'll see. I reserve the right to be outraged if they were seeking trivial information about a trivial case. If we're talking espionage, light treason (for any Arrested Development fans), leaks of classified information . . . it's hard for me to get too worked up about a list of phone calls. Particularly when the content of those calls is still hidden.

 

I usually tend to go with the thought that the easiest, most logical explanation is the best way. Unfortunately, this administration, and happenings under it, have been less than transparent and it is way too easy to perceive them as typical Chicago Machine tactics. People can write this all off as left-right dirty politics but, where there is smoke there is usually fire. Right now I would characterize this administration as fully engulfed in flames. We don't need to ease up on them, they need to do something that shows there is, in fact, no fire.

Legitimate transparency complaint aside . . . yikes.

[knapplc]

I also happen to get a kick out of politically tainted head-in-the sand acceptance.

 

The irony of this statement following on the heels of this post astounds me:

 

Look, I know some of you are not as concerned about the Benghazi as some of us are, and certainly not as over concerned as maybe Fox News or Sen. Graham seems to be but, there is no way you can say the administration has been open and forthcoming about the goings on there. Sure, a lot of it has to do with the whole issue being a partisan football but there are some real issues that need to be settled. IMO the order of importance is; 1- Americans were killed 2- We need to examine exactly what happened that allowed this to occur so that we can possibly prevent a reoccurrence. 3- Whether or not it is politically palatable, Americans need to be made aware that possibly this administrations view of world affairs (how to best deal with radical Islam) is potentially naïve. Americans were killed and I believe it could have been prevented, even as late as after the attack started if stand down orders had not been issued. It is now widely known that how to disseminate this information to the public was heavily discussed and manipulated, I can only assume that was done in the interest of the campaign and for political benefit. When those types of things are placed ahead of truth and security, I think we are right to keep hammering on the issue. It really does not matter in the least if Fox News or Graham didn't show the same level of concern about 11 other attacks that occurred on Bush's watch. That only displays those entities inconsistencies and bias and has no bearing on doing the right thing now.

 

I do not necessarily "tie" the IRS thing to Obama and yes, at this point, it is because he was/is President while it occurred. I'm just spit ballin here but I see no way this exact same thing (extra scrutiny of Tea Party and Patriot organizations) happens if a Republican is in the White House. And sure it could of happened with an organization like MoveOn under a repub administration. But the fact that it was Obama in the WH with a dem administration in charge does make it more suspect. If you don't think it does, you are too biased to be honest about it.

 

I guess I don't know how tame or wild the Justice departments actions are but I sure know that is not how the Justice Dept of the United States of America is expected to operate. Surely you do not want them acting with impunity when it comes to things like this. It may turn out to be fairly innocent and mild (tame) but the only thing keeping it from getting out of hand is the added scrutiny it is now receiving.

 

I usually tend to go with the thought that the easiest, most logical explanation is the best way. Unfortunately, this administration, and happenings under it, have been less than transparent and it is way too easy to perceive them as typical Chicago Machine tactics. People can write this all off as left-right dirty politics but, where there is smoke there is usually fire. Right now I would characterize this administration as fully engulfed in flames. We don't need to ease up on them, they need to do something that shows there is, in fact, no fire.

[BigRedBuster]

I love a good politically tainted faux outrage tantrum.

 

Bills to be made public, with time to read them before votes. [How can the President control the publication of congressional bills or the timing of the related votes.]

 

the promise Obama made about posting them and allowing five days for public comment before he signs them into law [Oh. By votes you meant signing them and by public comment you meant give the public a chance to decide if they like what Congress has already passed?]

 

Yeah....it was a pretty stupid campaign promise wasn't it? Let me ask you this. Did he flat out feed us a line of horse hooeey when he promised that or was he completely naive and clueless?

[carlfense]

Did he flat out feed us a line of horse hooeey when he promised that or was he completely naive and clueless?

I lean towards the former.

[knapplc]

Yeah....it was a pretty stupid campaign promise wasn't it? Let me ask you this. Did he flat out feed us a line of horse hooeey when he promised that or was he completely naive and clueless?

 

I think without question Barack Hussein Obama is naive and clueless. Right?

[JJ Husker]

Americans were killed and I believe it could have been prevented, even as late as after the attack started if stand down orders had not been issued.

Huh?

 

Surely you are aware that added security had been requested and denied and that there was a response team ready to go, once it started, but they were ordered to not go. If not aware of these things, you can try this thing called google.

 

I can only assume that was done in the interest of the campaign and for political benefit.

Why is that? It's not hard to think of several plausible possibilities. I'm not sure why you'd jump to the Obama conspiracy conclusion. (Besides . . . prepare for the pivot to Hillary. The GOP won't care too much about Obama in the near future. They care a great deal, and with good reason, about Hillary Clinton.)

 

I wouldn't characterize it is some grand conspiracy but rather a poor decision made for the wrong reasons. And it really wouldn't be a "pivot" to Hillary considering she has been right in the middle of it all the way. Seems highly plausible to me but, since you brought it up, what are the several more plausible reasons you see?

 

I guess I don't know how tame or wild the Justice departments actions are but I sure know that is not how the Justice Dept of the United States of America is expected to operate. Surely you do not want them acting with impunity when it comes to things like this. It may turn out to be fairly innocent and mild (tame) but the only thing keeping it from getting out of hand is the added scrutiny it is now receiving.

We'll see. I reserve the right to be outraged if they were seeking trivial information about a trivial case. If we're talking espionage, light treason (for any Arrested Development fans), leaks of classified information . . . it's hard for me to get too worked up about a list of phone calls. Particularly when the content of those calls is still hidden.

 

I would agree.

 

I usually tend to go with the thought that the easiest, most logical explanation is the best way. Unfortunately, this administration, and happenings under it, have been less than transparent and it is way too easy to perceive them as typical Chicago Machine tactics. People can write this all off as left-right dirty politics but, where there is smoke there is usually fire. Right now I would characterize this administration as fully engulfed in flames. We don't need to ease up on them, they need to do something that shows there is, in fact, no fire.

Legitimate transparency complaint aside . . . yikes.

 

Yikes? Yikes, that American citizens should expect their government to be transparent? Yikes, that citizens should expect their government to not retaliate on political adversaries through the IRS? Yikes, that we expect an explanation from the Justice Dept about why wide ranging phone call logs of AP reporters were gathered? I guess my reactions is "yikes" for anyone who doesn't expect these things.