• 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]


Again, nothing about wiretapping. From what I understand, the Justice Department wanted to review phone records to see if any calls were made to or from the AP by any inside government source or phone related to the leak of information about a planned terrorist plot that was stopped. They aren't trying to listen in on actual calls now, just the phone records. The police do this all the time in criminal investigations - the twist here is that the press is considered above such actions constitutionally.
 
They deserve to be criticized. They are also not (as of yet) dangerous to the integrity of the administration itself.
 
For foreign calls, not domestic calls. That's little fact is conveniently left out.

who cares?

I'm a citizen with certain protections. That the person on the other end of my call is overseas doesn't mean a god damn thing. stop shilling for these politicians if you ever want to be taken seriously
 
who cares?

I'm a citizen with certain protections. That the person on the other end of my call is overseas doesn't mean a god damn thing. stop shilling for these politicians if you ever want to be taken seriously

I'm not schilling for anyone. I'm simply pointing out the facts. Stop calling me a schil, just because you don't like what I have to say, if you ever want to be taken seriously.

oh, and learn how to spell schil.
 
When did women get to vote in Canada? It's going to kill you to admit it, cause it'll show you up for what you are....full of it. Go ahead and look it up, it's wasn't back in the 18th Century......or the 19th Century......

Difference is we don't idolize our founding fathers like they were gods.
 
I'm not schilling for anyone. I'm simply pointing out the facts. Stop calling me a schil, just because you don't like what I have to say, if you ever want to be taken seriously.

oh, and learn how to spell schil.

you pointed out nonsense. I remember you all too well. You were a Bushbot that defended his warrantless wiretaps constantly. your feigned indignation is laughable now.
 
Difference is we don't idolize our founding fathers like they were gods.

Most Canadians don't know what real freedom is, like we do here in The United States of America, so that's understandable.
 
When did women get to vote in Canada? It's going to kill you to admit it, cause it'll show you up for what you are....full of it. Go ahead and look it up, it's wasn't back in the 18th Century......or the 19th Century......

Wrong country! He's somewhere in Babylon!
 
you pointed out nonsense. I remember you all too well. You were a Bushbot that defended his warrantless wiretaps constantly. your feigned indignation is laughable now.

I'm a Bushbot? You got a link where I defended warrantless wiretapping?

I don't think investigators should have to get a warrant to listen in on a call coming out of Iran. That part's true. I've never defended warrantless wiretapping of domestic phone calls.
 
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.
 
Again, nothing about wiretapping. From what I understand, the Justice Department wanted to review phone records to see if any calls were made to or from the AP by any inside government source or phone related to the leak of information about a planned terrorist plot that was stopped. They aren't trying to listen in on actual calls now, just the phone records. The police do this all the time in criminal investigations - the twist here is that the press is considered above such actions constitutionally.
And the police has to get a court order to allow them to obtain phone records. did the DOJ have a court order?
 
I'm a Bushbot? You got a link where I defended warrantless wiretapping?

you got any links proving you were critical of this. anything at all to suggest you ever showed a concern for privacy before?

See, I called you a shill. go look it up sometime. That you are in this thread all concerned about what Obama did to the AP is hysterical.

What i am accusing you of, is being a phony. you are pretending to care about issues that you don't actually care about. And I can prove that pretty easy

you said:
I don't feel as if my civil rights have been infringed, if someone listens in on my phone conversations. One, because I feel like a phone conversation is no more private than talking to someone sitting in a resturant. Two, they'll be real disappointed at what they hear.

game, set, match.

now go look up the definition of shill. then stop being one.
 
you got any links proving you were critical of this. anything at all to suggest you ever showed a concern for privacy before?

See, I called you a shill. go look it up sometime. That you are in this thread all concerned about what Obama did to the AP is hysterical.

What i am accusing you of, is being a phony. you are pretending to care about issues that you don't actually care about. And I can prove that pretty easy



game, set, match.

now go look up the definition of shill. then stop being one.

I'm not the one making the accusation. I don't HAVE to produce a link proving anything.

You can apologize for the fale accusation and personal attacks anytime you like. I'm ready!
 
Yes, I believe they did. The got a subpoena.

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?
 
I'm not the one making the accusation. I don't HAVE to produce a link proving anything.

You can apologize for the fale accusation and personal attacks anytime you like. I'm ready!

i posted your own words showing that you are a phony.

edit: here they are again

apdst said:
I don't feel as if my civil rights have been infringed, if someone listens in on my phone conversations. One, because I feel like a phone conversation is no more private than talking to someone sitting in a resturant. Two, they'll be real disappointed at what they hear.
 
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?

When the Obama administration wants to hide something, like this, they have the discipline to keep quiet. When they want to leak something, like their ability to cyber attack Iran's nuclear facilities or all the details about the bin Laden raid, forget national security concerns, Boo Boo needs to be massaged.
 
When the Obama administration wants to hide something, like this, they have the discipline to keep quiet. When they want to leak something, like their ability to cyber attack Iran's nuclear facilities or all the details about the bin Laden raid, forget national security concerns, Boo Boo needs to be massaged.

They're hiding this for a reason...someone broke the law.
 
All I've seen you post are insults.

I also posted a direct quote of yours. here it is again:

"I don't feel as if my civil rights have been infringed, if someone listens in on my phone conversations. One, because I feel like a phone conversation is no more private than talking to someone sitting in a resturant. Two, they'll be real disappointed at what they hear."
 
Yes, I believe they did. The got a subpoena.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas


Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe

If a subpoena was issued by a judge or a grand jury they violated the spirit of the law
 
All I've seen you post are insults.

So what's the grand conspiracy theory behind the surveillance of AP ? ........................
 
A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas


Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe

If a subpoena was issued by a judge or a grand jury they violated the spirit of the law

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom