I 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
nick, Yep. I know there are those that certainly hope so. Fox news comes to mind.
Trevor Timm:
“Writing for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm also said that the scandal was one of the White House’s own making.
“The White House created this war-on-leaks monster,” he wrote. “Congress has only encouraged its expansion, instead of investigating the wrongdoing that many of the leaks exposed. And now, it’s out of control.””
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/ap-phone-records-carl-bernstein-nixonian_n_3271542.html)
SWM, Today it would be be hers. But the “Lucy, you got some ‘splaining to do,” is looming quite large. The WaPo just gave the prez 4 pinnochios for his little hissy fit in the UK. It may all be crumbling. Time will tell.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/on_scandals_obama_held_to_higher_standard_than_bush/
“In terms of partisanship, Republicans now screaming bloody murder over the IRS allegations clearly don’t care about the principles of equal protection, nonpartisan public services or impartial governance. We know this because most of them had nothing to say about the Bush administration’s actions against the GOP’s ideological opponents. In the context of that record, the GOP is really saying it is outraged when government resources are aimed at its friends, but more than happy to have those resources aimed at its enemies.
That context, though, hasn’t been publicly referenced by most Democrats. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), most Democratic lawmakers have not dared to mention that the problem of politicized government goes back many years.
That gets to expectations and ideological bias – simply put, the expectation in a Washington where both parties and most media outlets tilt to the right is that conservative groups should never be treated the same way liberal groups so often are. Why? Because conservative causes (say, the anti-tax movement) tend to be aligned with the interests of the transpartisan moneyed establishment while liberal causes (say, the anti-war movement) tend to be at odds with those interests.
Thus, when conservative groups happen to be treated like liberal groups, the Washington Outrage Machine turns the noise up to 11 – even though when liberal groups were targeted, that Outrage Machine remained dormant. And with today’s national press corps reoriented around amplifying – rather than challenging – power, this double standard is then predictably reflected in a corresponding discrepancy in coverage.
Taken together, the lesson should be straightforward: according to Washington, politicized government is perfectly fine when it is punishing liberal forces that challenge the status quo, but totally outrageous when it is targeting conservative groups that preserve the status quo.
Neither should be acceptable, of course. But that truism is ignored by a hypocritical political culture whose unquestioned assumptions so obviously favor the right.” David Sirota, Salon
President Obama will probably not fire Eric Holder becuse the president actually supports his actions.
President Obama could get away with something as outrageous as genocide because sufficient nuimbers of Democrats will continue to worship him as their dear leader in one side or be indifferent while continuing to pull the party line on the other.
I know it is important to advocate change and to advocate holding politicians responsible for their actions, but don’t expect anything other than business as usual out of those currently in office.
Could this be the tipping point when the press will actually ask pertinent questions? Dig deep for answers? -Paul
Let’s hope, as you say.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/hillary-will-take-only-so-much-guff-91288.html Maybe Hillary won’t run but I think if she does, the nomination is hers.
Blouise,
How does one get past the ‘”sniper fire” issue? (…asked from a position of respect, of course.)
This web site has numerous blogs on the abuses against civil liberties by this administration. The press has for the most part been silent when during the GWB administration they cried long and loud about similar and lesser abuses. Now that they have been the target, the S has hit the fan. They are suddenly outraged at the abuses of this administration.
Could this be the tipping point when the press will actually ask pertinent questions? Dig deep for answers? Quit worshiping their man in the house Mr. O? One can only hope.
Blouise, Are you speaking of the Texas Twins? LA mayor? It would be tough for loyal, woman Dem voters to accept taking a back seat for a black prez, then Latino prez, don’t you think? Women sucked it up for Obama, I doubt they would do it again.
AY,
The loss of Alexander Hamilton was a tragedy … can you imagine the Adams/Jefferson letters being a three way … Adams/Jefferson/Hamilton.
I wonder if Jefferson would have been able to do his legacy rework regarding the Declaration if Hamilton had still been alive.
“Until we get rid of the Patriot Act, this kind of abuse will never cease…”
-rafflaw
Agreed.
nick,
You didn’t ask me but I’m not shy … I’d vote for Hillary in a heartbeat but I don’t know if Biden will give up his spot to her and there are plenty of “unknowns” (similar to Obama back in 2003) waiting in the wings of the Democratic Party … think Hispanic ancestry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-rand-paul-aggressively-courting-evangelicals-to-win-over-gop-establishment/2013/05/12/d917ccb4-b8af-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html
I’ll agree Burr….. Needed to go…. Oh… Yeah…. A duel….. Some say one of em cheated…. No charges were ever brought…..
And you know Blouise….. The remainder of your statement is true on so many fronts and on so many occasions….. Sometimes it’s just easier to do the right thing up front….
nick, I don’t know that Hillary is even running. The only ones that are clearly running are Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, and I would never ever vote for either of them.
It’s funny what gets the attention of the formerly sychophant MSM. Jay Carney flat assed lied to them in November when he said the changes in the talking points was “one word.” They really didn’t give a rat’s ass until it was shown to be a blatant lie, that Carney stands by! They are outraged that their own were spied upon by an out of control DOJ. The IRS thing, well if that doesn’t get them to react, they are completely worthless. They have been the administation’s b!tches since 2008, and they now realize it. Karma is a b!tch.
AY,
Burr has always fascinated me … watching the man devolve must have been like watching that ice flow on another thread
As to Washington and Jefferson … both talked a good game but only one consistantly lived it.
SWM, I will take you @ your word. So do you realllly like Hillary? Is their anyone for whom you would vote if they ran against her?