Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Free Speech, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

Nixonian or Obamaesque? Obama Administration Spied On Associated Press Editors and Reporters

220px-Richard_NixonPresident_Barack_ObamaI recently published a column on how Barack Obama has publicly assumed many of the powers that were once cited as the basis for the investigation and attempted impeachment of Richard Nixon. One of those areas was the Obama Administration’s crackdown on journalists. This week Attorney General Eric Holder appears to have yet again added to this ignoble record. It appears that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. This disclosure follows another recent disclosure that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted conservative groups associated with the Tea Party. Yet, once again, most Democrats remain silent in a type of cult of personality where principle is discarded in favor of loyalty to the President.


The spying on reporters by the Obama Administration included outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters. The seizure covered general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn. The Justice Department showed no restraint or concern, even including the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. It now appears that in a few years historians could well be saying the Nixon was perfectly Obamaesque in his abuses.

AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt has written a letter to Holder objecting to the spying, noting that “[t]here can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” I would be equally upset with the mere fact of the spying as opposed to its breadth.

The spying may be part of a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. AP agreed to hold the story after an objection from the Administration but ultimately ran the story disclosing a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. While working with the Administration in holding the story, the Administration apparently was moving to spy on five reporters and an editor who were involved in the story.

Holder would have to have personally approved the subpoenas under Justice Department regulations.  However, it is not enough to again criticize Holder (who has assembled one of the most abusive records on civil liberties in our history).  Obama is well aware of the objections by civil libertarians and personally approved such decisions as promising CIA officials that they would not be investigated for torture and the kill list policy.

What is most striking about this story is the sense of complete immunity and lack of concern shown by the Administration. That sense of impunity has developed over four years as Democrats have gone into radio silence over abuses by the Administration from Obama’s “kill list” policy to other rollbacks on civil liberties. There will come a day when this president is no longer in office and many Democrats and Liberals will be faced with the imperial presidency that he created in the hands of someone they do not revere. When that day comes, it will be hard to climb over the mountain of hypocrisy to find a principled ground for criticism.

Source: CNN

289 thoughts on “Nixonian or Obamaesque? Obama Administration Spied On Associated Press Editors and Reporters”

  2. lottakatz:

    It would also give Biden the incumbent’s advantage in 2016. The Republicans Hillary wouldn’t stand for that.

  3. Tony C, Hillary was considered to be an effective senator who got along with both sides of the aisle.

  5. Rand Paul is going to be carrying some of the “kook” baggage of his father although he is working hard to appear like any other christianist republican.

  8. Agreed, Tony. The nepotism and name recognition is going to hurt both Hillary and Jeb.

  9. LK,

    Once again, spot on. You’ve been eating your Wheaties with Extra Political Science. 😉

  10. Blouise: [To Gene] “As fevered as HRC supporters are …” trash talk, Gene, and not conducive to rational discussion.

    Neither is being a fevered HRC supporter, and simply denying all her negatives as immaterial, irrelevant, inconsequential or beside the point.

    One can claim all they want Obama wasn’t ready, but Obama won two terms, handily.

    I would not vote for Rand Paul by any means, but I am objective enough to see that Rand Paul has a few things going for him, and because he isn’t in complete agreement with his Party, could easily bring a lot of votes to the party. It makes no difference how crazy he is, like Palin, if he was the nominee then led by Fox, the conservative media would salute and endorse him as a flawless genius; so would Republicans in the House and Senate. As they did with McCain, they would pair him up with a photogenic running mate with little baggage (as far as Republicans are concerned); perhaps Paul Ryan again, perhaps a female, perhaps an Hispanic. (my actual prediction, however, is Chris Christie.)

    I don’t think Warren being “ready” is an issue, it did not keep Obama from winning. Like Obama, if she fights the primary and wins the nomination, she could easily find her own “Biden” to provide the experience balance. She already has far more national legislative experience than Obama had when he got elected, and (IMO) better and more relevant academic qualifications as well.

    I will also say that Hillary has never won an elective seat; Warren has (and Obama had won more than one, counting his Illinois elections). Also, Hillary’s experience at the time was reflected glory from Bill, which I think has faded in relevance. Secretary of State is a good gig for the resume; but she was appointed, not elected. I think to a large number of voters that would prefer a Democrat over a Republican, including me, Hillary’s political career seems much like insider dealing or a nepotism boost, or “Clinton” name recognition; not something she gained entirely by her own efforts.

    I don’t think candidate Warren is wishful thinking, I truly think she could win the Democratic primary. I truly hope she thinks that, too.

  11. Alex, Obama won’t be removed from office by impeachment. That would make Biden the Prez and he’s more liberal on social issues than Obama. It would also give Biden the incumbent’s advantage in 2016. The Republicans wouldn’t stand for that. The Republican’s are going to use the second Obama term for scandals/hearings.

    Just their plain ol’ obstructionism is getting on the voters nerves though that will continue. What are the odds that the NLRB will spend Obama’s second term without a quorum too due to holds and filibusterer? You don’t see anyone in Congress saying that the laws that allow this kind of domestic spying need to be reformed because reform isn’t the point, political theater is. This story (DOJ/AP) which is a real scandal and abuse of power and needs to be addressed substantially but it won’t. The IRS thing and Bengazi are sideshows for the masses.

    But hey, if the Republicans want to kick Obama out and have President Biden I’d be OK with that- even knowing that the Republican objection to Obama is in major part racism unfettered.

  12. Blouise,

    Just because you don’t like doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If you want to live in denial that HRC is simply more of the same, that is your choice, but I’m pretty sure she’s unelectable. Why? Well in part your reaction shows why. She’s polarizing and she has just as many if not more detractors as supporters from across the political spectrum (although I’ll stipulate she has more vocal detractors on the right). In addition, Hillary has a lot of baggage that competent propagandists will use to cut her chances even further once issue ads start should she run.

    Warren’s skill set and readiness? Is an entirely different discussion.

    *************

    Smom,

    Maybe, but it wouldn’t be a walk in the park.

  13. The Law Behind the A.P. Phone-Record Scandal

    Posted by Lynn Oberlander

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/ap-phone-record-scandal-justice-department-law.html

    Excerpt:

    The cowardly move by the Justice Department to subpoena two months of the A.P.’s phone records, both of its office lines and of the home phones of individual reporters, is potentially a breach of the Justice Department’s own guidelines. Even more important, it prevented the A.P. from seeking a judicial review of the action. Some months ago, apparently, the government sent a subpoena (or subpoenas) for the records to the phone companies that serve those offices and individuals, and the companies provided the records without any notice to the A.P. If subpoenas had been served directly on the A.P. or its individual reporters, they would have had an opportunity to go to court to file a motion to quash the subpoenas. What would have happened in court is anybody’s guess—there is no federal shield law that would protect reporters from having to testify before a criminal grand jury—but the Justice Department avoided the issue altogether by not notifying the A.P. that it even wanted this information. Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight function of the courts. End of excerpt

  14. Blouise, Biden Warren ……if Hillary doesn’t run. … Sounds good…….

  15. “As fevered as HRC supporters are …” trash talk, Gene, and not conducive to rational discussion.

    Warren is no more ready to be President in 2016 than Obama was in 2008. Although Biden wasn’t his first choice as running mate, it was a sound move for governance based on Biden’s years of experience in the arena. I can’t think of anyone who has the experience Warren needs in a running mate who would be willing to serve as a running mate.

    Clinton, on the other hand, has far more experience than even Biden possesses and once we get past the electability issue (a decision made by the Party), the running mate could be just about anybody.

    Now, down to brass tacks … a ticket with Biden/Pres and Warren/VP … electable and good for governance.

    I think the decision has already been made or is very close to being made.

  17. Smom,

    As fevered as HRC supporters are, most of them don’t realize how thoroughly despised she is from substantial elements from both the right and the left (albeit often for different reasons). As big a goober as Paul is, it would be at a minimum a stand up fight. There’s plenty of ammo for both sides to bring to bear.

  18. Don’t get me wrong, Blouise. I’d want to hear a lot more about some of Warren’s other positions before a lever was thrown, but Warren at this point – at least from an ethical standpoint – is a much more attractive candidate than Hillary ever could be. That being said, no one person could do all that needs to be done alone. However, a leader with the right ideas about the the nature of the problems (which in some areas Warren does have) and the willingness to take the battles (id.) is a good start. What I’d really like to hear is her position on the Patriot Act, about her willingness (or not) to go after criminals in previous administrations and what she would do about campaign finance reform.

  19. Tony, She won’t lose to Rand. Women, minorities, gay people and immigrants don’t like him. Remember the Obama coalition. He is worse on social issues than Romney. Women will turn out in droves and republican women will cross over and vote for Hillary. Warren would not get republican women or carry any southern states like Virginia or Florida.

Comments are closed.