freeman3 wrote:Well, you are bringing up a number of different issues, DF. What I addressed is whether Holder committed perjury by saying that he was not aware of any prosecutions of reporters with regard to classified leaks and would not favor such. I think the clear answer is no.

As has been widely reported, the affidavit says repeatedly that there is probable cause to believe that Rosen is guilty of a crime, and that his email account will provide evidence of a crime, as well as “fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed.” But the affidavit goes even beyond that. It specifically says that the FBI is looking for evidence of both Kim’s and Rosen’s guilt:

Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.

Emphasis added. But the real clincher is Paragraph 45, which states in part:

Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:

Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the _______@gmail.com account.

So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.

You brought up the affidavit. First, I think it needs to be pointed out that Holder did not prepare this affidavit. The reason he signed it was due to the sensitive nature of a search warrant dealing with a reporter. Now, it if was wrong to have a search warrant for the reporter's emails, phone etc., then Holder should have to answer for it.

He needs to be able defend why the search warrant was justified. But when you start to get into the minute details of the affidavit, I just don't think it is fair to blame the attorney general if some of those details are questionable. He is entitled to rely on his subordinates, who have much more familiarity with the case, to get the details right.

So, if anyone is to blame it is the person who prepared the affidavit. However, I don't see anything significantly wrong with the affidavit. Rosen did have potential criminal liability; without a reporter's shield law he is a co-conspirator--he helped to release classified info. Lumping Rosen into a catch-all concern that targets of the investigation might flee or disguise the identify--that is nitpicking. I would bet that was pretty much boiler-plate phraseology and the person preparing the affidavit did not really think about Rosen in particular as to whether he was more or less likely to disguise his identify or fleet.

And by the way, what if the government asked for the information directly from Rosen and alerted him to the investigation--wouldn't there be a legitimate concern that documents identifying the source would be destroyed? So the government had a legitimate interest in not informing Rosen of the investigation

You think the reason there’s been conspicuously little news about the DOJ investigating the NYT for revealing Obama’s glorious Stuxnet success (which might not have been so glorious in hindsight) or for reminding voters a few months before the election that he’s liquidated an awful lot of jihadis is because … those warrants simply haven’t been disclosed yet? Here’s a choice excerpt from the Times’s big “kill list” expose last May:

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

That’s more than 30 different national-security officials implicated in the possible disclosure of classified information related to Obama’s personal management of blasting terrorists into a thin mist. And yet, unless I missed something, not a single warrant or subpoena related to any of them has come to light in the year since that story ran. Odd, no? Occam’s razor: If there were warrants related to some supposed “kill list” leak investigation out there, wouldn’t O have sought to release one or more of them over the past few weeks to prove his evenhandedness in sniffing out unauthorized intelligence disclosures? It’d be powerful proof that not even the president’s inner circle is above the law to see a document signed by Eric Holder demanding personal communications from John Brennan or Tom Donilon on suspicion of blabbing to the media about something that helped Obama a lot politically. Surely Brennan was investigated and then cleared of wrongdoing before he was promoted to CIA chief. And yet … no warrants have materialized. Anyone else have a crazy theory as to why there are no documents in the news related to investigating leaks that helped Obama?

We’ve reached an interesting juncture in this scandal process if the big defense of Obama and Holder on the left’s news network of choice is that they’re probably/hopefully being just as aggressive in spying on friendly media too.

freeman3 wrote:Well, I think it is a political problem when you go after the press like Holder's Justice Department did with regard to leaks of classified information. That is the global, important issue--I think Republicans should focus on that issue because is an issue of fundamental rights. But Republicans have not necessarily been protective of reporter's rights with regard to classified leaks....http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/11 ... s-20120712

I just love this quote from the article:

"Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) suggested that the U.S. attorneys subpoena journalists to determine the names of sources who provide classified information.

"Put them in front of the grand jury," Gowdy said. "You either answer the question or you're going to be held in contempt and go to jail, which is what I thought all reporters aspire to do anyway. I thought that was the crown jewel of the reporter's resume to actually go to jail protecting a source."

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, disclosed on Tuesday that she had made telephone calls to three companies regulated by her department and urged them to help a nonprofit group promote President Obama’s health care law.

She identified the companies as Johnson & Johnson, the drug maker; Ascension Health, a large Roman Catholic health care system; and Kaiser Permanente, the health insurance plan.

At a Congressional hearing, Ms. Sebelius said she had not explicitly asked the companies for money, but urged them to support the work of the nonprofit group, Enroll America.

The group, led by former Obama administration officials, is working with the White House to publicize the 2010 health care law and help uninsured people sign up for coverage.

Republicans in Congress have raised questions about the legality and propriety of Ms. Sebelius’s efforts, saying she was trying to circumvent limits on spending set by Congress.

The group, led by former Obama administration officials, is working with the White House to publicize the 2010 health care law and help uninsured people sign up for coverage

rickyp wrote:fate

The group, led by former Obama administration officials, is working with the White House to publicize the 2010 health care law and help uninsured people sign up for coverage

.

And this must be stopped?
Why?

rickyp wrote:So you're saying its wrong to produce a promotional campaign designed to inform the uninsured of the offerings of the ACA...Specifically to ensure that they know they have an insurance option available to them...
And furthermore, its wrong to enlist the aid of private companies to pay for the promotion .

Isn't providing citizens with complete information about the services available to them part of the governments role? And isn't it common practice to enlist the aid of private industry in social welfare programs? Particularly when the industry has a common goal with the program?

Doctor Fate wrote:This is like the Secretary of Defense launching a campaign to prevent sexual harassment. Now, that would be laudable. However, if he were calling defense contractors and "suggesting" they give to the "voluntary" campaign it would be an obvious conflict of interest.

Same thing here.

Sebelius holds a sword over the heads of these companies. Her "asking" is not like you asking.

Sebelius told the House Education and Workforce Committee that she didn't explicitly ask Johnson & Johnson, Ascension Health and Kaiser Permanente to give money to Enroll America, a nonprofit organization run by a former Barack Obama administration official designed to get people to use the law's new insurance exchanges. She only called "to discuss the organization and suggest that the entities look at the organization."

If you were the person on the other end of that call, you might see that as a distinction without a difference. You don't get to be a corporate executive if you can't take a hint, and when you're dealing with an agency whose decisions determine your success, you may choose to err on the side of caution.

Sebelius also pointed out her predecessor under President George W. Bush did the same thing, urging companies to help promote the 2003 prescription drug benefit. "Bush did it too" is an interesting defense to hear from a Democratic Cabinet secretary. That fact may make it harder for Republicans to criticize Sebelius's fundraising, but it doesn't make it kosher.

So, it's not a "government" program

Fate's right here. If she wanted to build support for this effort she should have contacted the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, not Johnson & Johnson. It's not like there weren't other, more appropriate organizations to call