Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Party Rooster, May 20, 2013.
Scooped BIV on this one...
I look forward to Fox and the token Republicans bitching about this 100x more than the AP tapping. At least Don & friends will appreciate Obama's strong stance against the leaking of gov secrets.
It's lazy. Investigate your own people harder if you think they're leaking stuff they shouldn't. I wonder if the time frames coincide with when they blew that British agent's cover in Saudi Arabia.
I was against the AP tapping too, troll. Leave me the fuck out of it.
When I investigate shit I always do the hard shit first instead of following obvious leads.
I can't believe a judge signed off on the search warrant.
And that State Department employee is so fucked. Enjoy your stay at Club Fed.
I saw tons of right wing outrage at the AP tapping. I'm sure Fox will be harsher on this because if you're a Fox pundit who actually knows Rosen, you're probably also angry about this on a personal level. Not saying I agree with it, but it also wouldn't automatically strike me as political.
Not nearly as much as speculation over Benghazi. Fox loves to play the victim so this will be great for them.
I was just watching the initial report on this from Fox and they keep mentioning the AP story over and over. If anything it helps bolster the claim that there is a pattern here.
is this the transparency obama promised?
And I look forward to MSNBC, CNN, the Huffington Post, etc. making a much smaller deal out of this than the AP story (which wasn't tapping, by the way, it was a records search and I was against that, too). This administration really is unbelievable.
Not sure if hyperbole or unrealistic expectations.
NY Times Editorial Board blasted Obama for the Rosen story today.
None of the above. I don't think it's unreasonable or unrealistic to expect the President and the people he appoints to not target the media for doing its job, to not target groups with different political beliefs for additional and unfair scrutiny from the IRS, and to not lie to the country about something like terrorist attacks before an election. All of this coming from "the most trasnparent administration ever," an "outsider" who was going to "change Washington," and all that nonsense would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Didn't happen, didn't happen, and questionable. At least be accurate in your complaints.
Wait, you're saying the IRS thing didn't happen? You should listen to the democrats in the hearing today.
I'm saying the president and the people he appointed did not target groups.
If two grunts abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib reflects badly on the Bush Administration, then high-ranking IRS officials running political witch hunts most certainly reflects badly on the Obama Administration. Especially considering how many times the people involved visited The White House. 118 was it?
When did I say it didn't reflect negatively on the administration?
So the government didn't label a reporter as a co-conspirator in a criminal complaint against someone who leaked information and didn't seize an unusual amount of phone records from the AP? The IRS didn't target conservative groups unfairly? Lerner refused to testify about what happened so there must be more to the story than the bullshit excuses they've tried selling us so far. Middle managers in the government don't jsut make those sorts of decisions on their own. By pleading the 5th she was covering her own ass and avoiding selling out her superiors. And the Benghazi thing isn't questionable by any streatch of the imagination. The administration lied. They sent Rice out to make the Sunday morning rounds with talking points they knew were false and they left out information they knew to be true and kept selling that version of events even after it was known to be wrong.
I would argue that my expectation of any administration is that it curb this stuff internally, and not let it erupt into a national scandal. And regarding your first "never happened" - I would argue that the justice department treating journalists as co-conspirators in leak cases absolutely leads back to people the president appointed. You don't just make a decision like that on a junior level because it's a major precedent.
The best-case scenario is that the person the President nominated for the position (in this case, Holder) does not have adequate control over his department. Between the AP phone records, the Rosen story, and Fast and Furious it seems like Holder is either completely incapable of overseeing the Justice Department or he had managed to keep his job despite a total disregard for the laws of this country.
Again, there's a difference between reporting on a leak and conspiring with someone to obtain information.
He wasn't reporting on a leak. He reported info leaked to him by a State Department source about North Korea. That led to him being examined as a co-conspirator. That's pretty outrageous.
First off, you know what I meant. Second off, they apparently have evidence that shows he was working with the source to get the information. It was 'Hey, can you get me some more info? Here's how we'll do it' not 'Oh, someone send me some sweet info.' If he had taken the info to Russia instead of a news article he'd be a spy.