• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House in damage control mode as potential scandals pile up [W:378]

Holder would have to sign off on the subpoena. If it's all nice and neat and legal, why didn't Holder just say that?


Holder cant sign off on a subpoena he is neither a judge nor a grand jury unless you are referring to him giving permission for a subpoena to be brought in front of a judge or grand jury
 
Anyone else get the feeling that the sharks are starting to circle and a feeding frenzie is about to begin?

The stories, the leaks, the investigative reports, the White House press corps attacks on Carney, the Justice Department holding press briefings, etc. Says to me that the media finally spit out the Obama bit and now smells blood in the water and they're going in to inflict serious damage.

Heya CJ.....well Did you think they really have an excuse as to Wire tapping the Ap's Phones in the House? I don't think the excuse of leaks from the White house with the Ap has to do with anything concerning their phones in the House of Representatives.
 
Holder cant sign off on a subpoena he is neither a judge nor a grand jury unless you are referring to him giving permission for a subpoena to be brought in front of a judge or grand jury

That's not entirely accurate.

NPR's David Folkenflik reports:



"Deputy Attorney General James Cole authorized the subpoena of records for 20 phone lines involving a two-month period. The failure to tell the AP means the organization could not negotiate a more narrow release of records or fight it in court."

NPR's Carrie Johnson says that according to Justice Department guidelines:



"... the attorney general himself needs to sign off on a subpoena to a reporter. And prosecutors must demonstrate that they made every effort to get the information in other ways before even turning to the press.

But those rules also say prosecutors need to notify the media organization in advance unless that would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

Holder Defends Subpoena Of Journalists' Phone Logs : The Two-Way : NPR
 
Anyone else get the feeling that the sharks are starting to circle and a feeding frenzie is about to begin?

The stories, the leaks, the investigative reports, the White House press corps attacks on Carney, the Justice Department holding press briefings, etc. Says to me that the media finally spit out the Obama bit and now smells blood in the water and they're going in to inflict serious damage.

The state run media will defend Obama, but their not going to the gallows with him...lol!
 
Heya CJ.....well Did you think they really have an excuse as to Wire tapping the Ap's Phones in the House? I don't think the excuse of leaks from the White house with the Ap has to do with anything concerning their phones in the House of Representatives.

Good evening MMC - I'm not aware of any actual wiretapping, only rumours of such - is there any definitive source that confirms this?
 
The state run media will defend Obama, but their not going to the gallows with him...lol!

From what I've seen of the White House press gallery and the questions of Carney, I don't think there's much defending of Obama going on right now. It's actually refreshing. If it keeps up through the summer, it will have a definite impact on the 2014 mid-terms.
 
I don't disagree with you. But that would be up to the various telecom companies to challenge in a court or perhaps the AP as the aggrieved party can do that. Since it's only just become known, perhaps the AP intends to do so. I think it was Facebook last year or two years ago who challenged a subpoena, but I'm not sure of the results.

And that is why the forum poster apdst made the crack "Most Canadians don't know what real freedom is, like we do here in The United States of America, so that's understandable." if you don't think what the DOJ did didn't violate the spirit of the law you have grown accustomed to your government pulling **** like that here in America we are not
 
From what I've seen of the White House press gallery and the questions of Carney, I don't think there's much defending of Obama going on right now. It's actually refreshing. If it keeps up through the summer, it will have a definite impact on the 2014 mid-terms.

Naw, they'll all fall into lock-step by the time the midterms come around.
 
The state run media will defend Obama, but their not going to the gallows with him...lol!

Isn't the AP part of the state run media, according to you ?.................
 
And that is why the forum poster apdst made the crack "Most Canadians don't know what real freedom is, like we do here in The United States of America, so that's understandable." if you don't think what the DOJ did didn't violate the spirit of the law you have grown accustomed to your government pulling **** like that here in America we are not

Now, that's nonsense too. Only a court of law can determine that a person or party's legal rights have been abused by the government or any other party. Declaring it on a forum doesn't cut it. I didn't say I didn't agree with you that it may have violated the spirit of the law, but if a justice signed off on the subpoena, only a court can quash that subpoena unless the justice withdraws it him/herself.
 
Good evening MMC - I'm not aware of any actual wiretapping, only rumours of such - is there any definitive source that confirms this?

Well, what did the DOJ seize? If they had no subpenoa?
 
That's not entirely accurate.

i stand corrected thanks for pointing that out i went and looked it up i guess you learn something every day, but it still holds true that he violated the spirit of the law with that over reaching subpoena
 
Well, what did the DOJ seize? If they had no subpenoa?
phone records business cell and personal from over 200 AP reporters over a two month period. the DOJ went fishing and you are not allowed to do that
 
Last edited:
Well, what did the DOJ seize? If they had no subpenoa?

As I understand it, they seized telephone records, like your cellphone bill, from either the AP or the telecom company(s) they use. They did not seek to tap their phones going forward. The leak occurred over a year ago.
 
As I understand it, they seized telephone records, like your cellphone bill, from either the AP or the telecom company(s) they use. They did not seek to tap their phones going forward. The leak occurred over a year ago.



As I understand it, under the Patriot Act, hasn't alot of this extra power of surveillance already been legalized ?......................
 
As I understand it, under the Patriot Act, hasn't alot of this extra power of surveillance already been legalized ?......................

Wiretapping can only take place between a party in the US and a party outside the US, not on a call between two parties within the US, unless a warrant has been granted before the tap takes place. That's my understanding of the act.
 
when_in_doubt_blame_bush_anti_obama_card-p137183350429279729q0yk_400.jpg
 
This is so reminiscent of the Clinton years where the GOP investigated all these "gates" in a row to try and smear the presidency. Whitewatergate... travelgate and just kept moving the goalposts until they tripped across a stained dress.
 
Wiretapping can only take place between a party in the US and a party outside the US, not on a call between two parties within the US, unless a warrant has been granted before the tap takes place. That's my understanding of the act.

Right. But if the proper warrants have been issued, under the Patriot Act, hasn't alot of this extra power of surveillance already been legalized ?......................
 
Right. But if the proper warrants have been issued, under the Patriot Act, hasn't alot of this extra power of surveillance already been legalized ?......................

If a court issues the warrant, it's legal at that time - it can be challenged in court after the fact and the fruits of the warrant can be thrown out in any trial if found to be issued under false pretenses or improperly.

By the way, good evening Bonz.
 
If a court issues the warrant, it's legal at that time - it can be challenged in court after the fact and the fruits of the warrant can be thrown out in any trial if found to be issued under false pretenses or improperly.

By the way, good evening Bonz.

Hi, JC. But any warrant can be challenged in court after the fact and the fruits of the warrant can be thrown out in any trial if found to be issued under false pretenses or improperly...................Correct ?..................So that hypothetical future action is merely part of our legal method ?.............................
 
What does President Obama have in common with Sgt Shultz? He knows nothing, nothing. He knows nothing about the truth about Benghazi. He knows nothing about the IRS auditing conservative groups even though he is the one who stood to gain from such audits. He knows nothing about the DOJ's investigating journalist at the AP. He knows nothing about nothing. How the **** is this clown president? The American people are idiots. They know nothing!
 
This is so reminiscent of the Clinton years where the GOP investigated all these "gates" in a row to try and smear the presidency. Whitewatergate... travelgate and just kept moving the goalposts until they tripped across a stained dress.

So you don't see any problem with the death of four Americans and the cover up? You don't see any problem with the IRS focusing on Conservative Groups or the Justice Department checking phone records of the AP? Is there anything that this administration can do that would bother you? Does seem like you along with all the other Obama supporters have a double standard and overlook issues that you would demonize a Republican for
 
Back
Top Bottom