Obama Administration turns against the Free Press

[vector7]

Magistrate who OKd warrant against James Rosen was previously criticized on Fox News

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Tuesday May 21st, 2013

By DAN CALABRESE - Agendas.

When the Obama Justice Department wanted to get a warrant so they could read the e-mails and review the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, they went to U.S. Magistrate Alan Kay, who granted the warrant on the basis of the DOJ's claim that Rosen may have been guilty of criminal conspiracy. That flies in the face of all legal history concerning reporters who doggedly pursue information, even classified information.

Yet Kay granted the warrant. Why would he do that? Well he may not be a big fan of Fox News.

In 2006, Kay issued a ruling favorable to Guantanamo Bay detainees and highly critical of the Bush Defense Department in their treatment of the detainees. According to Kay's Wikipedia page, Fox News quoted extensively on the air from Kay's ruling in the case of Salim Muhood Adem v. George W. Bush. I have not seen the segment, but knowing Fox News - particularly on issues like Gitmo in the post-9/11 years - I think it's a pretty safe guess that they weren't quoting Kay's ruling as a means of praising his decision.

This is crucially important. In order to secure the warrant that allowed them to read his e-mails, the Obama Justice Department accused Rosen of criminal conspiracy, and in order to make that stick - against all legal precedent - they had to find a judge who was willing to buy the argument. Kay was their man.

Ann Marimow of the Washington Post explains how unusual this is:

The case centers on Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department arms expert accused of passing details to Rosen from a classified report within hours of its release to a small circle within the intelligence community. Investigators also targeted Rosen, calling him a co-conspirator in an affidavit seeking a search warrant for Rosen’s personal e-mails.

In the affidavit, FBI agent Reginald Reyes said Rosen “asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.” He added, “The reporter did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.”

That detail particularly irked media lawyers and transparency experts, who said the Justice Department had crossed a line by equating routine reporting practices with possible criminal activity.

The FBI did not ultimately charge Rosen with a crime, only using the insinuation that he had committed one to justify the warrant they were after to read his e-mails and get access to his phone records.

Do you realize what this means? It means that any member of the media who seeks out information could be similarly charged with a crime in order to justify such a tactic. It means that if Obama doesn't like a particular reporter's line of reporting or analysis, all he has to do is tell Eric Holder to contrive something that wreaks of criminality, then find a like-minded judge, and that reporter's personal communications can be seized and monitored by the government.

As Marimow points out, there is no history of journalists being charged with criminal activity for doggedly pursuing information, regardless of the tactics they use to get it. So what made DOJ think such an accusation was justified here? Maybe because they knew they were going to a judge who wasn't a fan of Fox News.

How creepy is this?

As far as I'm concerned, this is an even bigger scandal than the one involving the IRS, which is not small.

If they can do this to James Rosen, they can do it to anyone.

And apparently they're more than willing.

[Ryan Ruck]

Sharyl Attkisson's (Of Fast And Furious Reporting) Computers Compromised

May 21, 2013

Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Dept. had searched Rosen's personal e-mails and tracked his visits to the State Dept. The court affadavit described Rosen as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" of his government source, presumably because he had solicited classified information from that source -- an argument that has been heavily criticized by other journalists.

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about." Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.

Boy, oh boy... The Obama admin is turning into a sweater that's had a loose thread pulled.

[American Patriot]

Sharyl Attkisson's (Of Fast And Furious Reporting) Computers Compromised

May 21, 2013

Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Dept. had searched Rosen's personal e-mails and tracked his visits to the State Dept. The court affadavit described Rosen as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" of his government source, presumably because he had solicited classified information from that source -- an argument that has been heavily criticized by other journalists.

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about." Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.

Boy, oh boy... The Obama admin is turning into a sweater that's had a loose thread pulled.

Her's?



(That's Sharyl Attkisson, lol)

[American Patriot]

[American Patriot]

Fox is reporting that the gov went well beyond James Rosen's information.

Fox phone lines, pentagon, state dept and WH phone lines for fox were looked at.

Bret Baier: Justice Department targeted James Rosen’s parents as well

2:35 AM 05/22/2013




Jeff Poor

• Tweet
• 

On Tuesday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, host Bret Baier revealed that the intrusions into James Rosen’s privacy went beyond Rosen himself and also involved his parents.


Baier laid out the specifics of Rosen’s situation during the panel segment, first reported by The Washington Post earlier this week.


“The U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. said because of this case — it’s an open case — active prosecution, they’re limited in what they can share,” Baier said. “The government exhausted, they said, ‘All reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting this evidence before seeking court approval for a search warrant based on the investigation and all the facts known to date. No other individuals, including the reporter, have been charged since Mr. Kim was indicted nearly three years ago.’ We can report that James Rosen, to his knowledge, was never contacted by anyone in the administration.”


Panelist Kirsten Powers noted that breach of protocol, but also noted he had not been charged with a crime.


“Which they’re supposed to do which is normal operating procedure,” Powers said. “The fact that he hasn’t been charged — I’m sorry. They just went through his emails and his private Gmail and that’s OK, but they haven’t charged him with anything, so let’s move on?”


Powers then criticized the Obama administration on those grounds, noting how they would leak information if it improved their image. But Baier revealed that in addition to Rosen having his own phone records seized, the federal government had also seized Rosen’s parents’ phone records.


“You know, I just want to point out one more thing,” Baier said. “You know, we said the different numbers. We have the documents now, and the seized toll records also relate to James’ parents’ home in Staten Island.”


Daily Caller editor in chief Tucker Carlson responded by lashing out at the media for not reacting to these attacks on Fox News and added that Rosen might not be alone, based on what CBS News’ correspondent Sharyl Attkisson told a Philadelphia radio host about her own computer on Tuesday.


“It’s unbelievable,” Carlson said. “This began when the administration tried to read Fox News out of the White House press pool. You had a politician determining what is and what is not a news organization, and by and large, the press stood still and allowed that to happen. By the way, Sharyl Attkisson, a terrific reporter at CBS, is reporting she believes her personal commuter was compromised. We don’t know by whom, but it does suggest this story may grow a lot bigger before it ends.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/22/br...#ixzz2U1mQwQJX

[American Patriot]

James Rosen Case: DOJ Targeting More Fox News Reporters

• Robby Barthelmess
• in
• Politics,
• General Politics
• 15 hours ago

James Rosen Case DOJ Targeting More Fox News Reporters



If only Olivia Pope were not a fictional television show character … I’m sure that she and her team of “gladiators in suits” would have been sitting in the oval office for these past couple of weeks. It looks like they will need her even more after today.


Reports have surfaced that not just one but three Fox news employees have been targeted by the department of justice. Fox News’ Megyn Kelly reported that it was not just James Rosen that the Obama administration’s DOJ targeted, but also William La Jeunesse and Producer Mike Levine. No notice was given to either the reporters or Fox news prior to the warrants.


In the affidavit filed by FBI agent Reginald Reyes, Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” The report also revealed that Rosen’s movements were also tracked.


This news come after the DOJ also tapped the phone lines used by over 20 AP reporters. Now it is evident that both the Associated Press and Fox News have been the target of these DOJ searches.


All three Fox News employees say the government never contacted them. According to Kelly, the typical process for such a warrant involves an attorney representing the agency that employs the reporter — in these cases, Fox News. However, these requests went without any legal representative working on behalf of the reporters and thus the scope of the warrant was not limited in the way that it typically would be.


I think that my tin foil hat just became a rather prized permanent addition to my daily wardrobe. I’ll go ahead and make sure to leave it on for a while.


Congratulations, Obama administration, you have officially shown that these frighteningly big-brotherish cronies within your administration not only are willing to go after our Constitutionally protected free press, but they are able to do so despite the so called privacy of the public and openness of government that you so fervently campaigned on.
Remember what you told us, Mr. President ...


“Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans.”

[American Patriot]

Krauthammer On Rosen Investigation: "The Fish Rots From The Head"





BILL O'REILLY: I want you to weigh in on James Rosen. Rosen investigating a story about North Korea retaliating to U.N. sanctions by testing missiles. Alright? That's what he was doing. The Justice Department wants to find out whose Rosen's source is for this information, goes in and looks at James' personal email account for about, almost a month. What do you say about that?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is a brazen assault on the First Amendment -- freedom of the press. We traditionally will go after the emails of a person who is under criminal suspicion for leaking it but we do not go after the journalists who merely are soliciting information. We have never had a successful prosecution of a journalist for doing their job.

O'REILLY: Do you see it as an anti-FOX play here?

KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I don't know whether in this particular case it was anti-fox. but it surely was an assault on the press. And we also know that from the beginning of this administration the White House, starting with the president, has tried to delegitimize FOX and pretend somehow it's outside the sphere of journalistic integrity and protection.

O'REILLY: This is all under the Attorney General and he can't recuse himself from this. So let's hear what yo have to say, Mr. Attorney General.

KRAUTHAMMER: To quote a Democrat, the fish rots from the head. (The O'Reilly Factor, May 21, 2013)

[American Patriot]

Carney: No comment on James Rosen case

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 5/20/13 2:52 PM EDT

White House press secretary Jay Carney wouldn't comment Monday on the ongoing national security leaks case involving Fox News reporter James Rosen, after a weekend news report detailing the Justice Department's surveillance of him.


"I can't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, nor should I," Carney said in response to one of several questions on the case, offering a similar answer each time. The Washington Post reported Sunday that the Justice Department tracked Rosen's use of ID badge in the State Department building, as well as his phone calls with his suspected source, State security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Rosen's case has gotten new scrutiny since The Associated Press learned it was under investigation by Justice for a report on terror groups in Yemen.


As a former reporter and as a spokesperson for President Obama, Carney said he "share[s] the president's belief that we need to find a balance" between national security and freedom of the press.

[American Patriot]

AP, Then James Rosen—How Widespread Is DOJ Surveillance of Journalists?

By Jordan Bloom • May 20, 2013, 12:52 PM

The Washington Post reported yesterday that in 2010 the Justice Department surveilled Fox News reporter James Rosen and obtained a search warrant for his private emails:

They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails. …


At a time when President Obama’s administration is under renewed scrutiny for an unprecedented number of leak investigations, the Kim case provides a rare glimpse into the inner workings of one such probe.

Glenn Greenwald explains what sets this apart from the Obama administration’s other prosecutions over leaks:

It involves the prosecution of State Department adviser Stephen Kim, a naturalized citizen from South Korea who was indicted in 2009 for allegedly telling Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, that US intelligence believed North Korea would respond to additional UN sanctions with more nuclear tests – something Rosen then reported. Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist – something done every day in Washington – and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for “espionage”. …


This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for “soliciting” the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

To obtain that search warrant (read the full thing here), the Obama administration had to argue Rosen had committed a criminal act. A second high-profile incident in as many weeks of the DOJ surveilling journalists raises the question of just how widespread this kind of behavior is, a question Julian Sanchez took up last Friday in Mother Jones. Not surprisingly, we don’t really know:

It wouldn’t be surprising if there were more cases like this we’ve never heard about. Here’s why: The Justice Department’s rules only say the media must be informed about “subpoenas” for “telephone toll records.” The FBI’s operations guidelines interprets those rules quite literally, making clear the requirement “concerns only grand jury subpoenas.” … The procedures that do apply to those tools have been redacted from publicly available versions of the FBI guidelines.

Thus, it’s no shocker the AP seizure would seem like an “unprecedented intrusion” if the government doesn’t think it has to tell us about the precedents. And there’s no telling if the Justice Department rules (and the FBI’s interpretation) allow the feds to seize without warning other types of electronic communications records that could reveal a journalist’s e-mail, chat, or Web browsing activity.

If there’s an upshot to any of this, it’s that snooping on journalists could be the last straw that gets people to care about the administration’s ongoing effort to shut down leaks and prosecute whistleblowers.


Key to both surveillance operations are the ways in which executive powers have expanded, but also how privacy laws have failed to keep pace with technological progress.

If ever there were a time to call for a ‘Leveson in reverse’ commission to examine how both might be adjusted to better protect journalists and whistleblowers—rather than a toothless shield law, as the administration is proposing—now might be it.

Follow @j_arthur_bloom

[vector7]

May need to change the name of this thread from 'Obama Administration turns against the Free Press' to 'Obama Administration turns against FOX News.

Oops, we already have some.

[American Patriot]

hahahahaha

[American Patriot]

House panel probes whether Holder misled lawmakers on reporter records grab

By Judson Berger

Published May 28, 2013

FoxNews.com


A House committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress when he testified two weeks ago about the department's pursuit of journalists' personal records, an aide confirmed to FoxNews.com on Tuesday.

Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, Holder insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or knew about.

But days later, it emerged that the Justice Department obtained access to the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen -- after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea.

Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act.

Asked about potential problems with Holder's testimony, a House Judiciary Committee aide told FoxNews.com that the committee is "further investigating this matter."

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who in recent years has emerged as a prominent conservative critic of his former employer, said Tuesday that Holder seems to have misled Congress.

"Holder said it's not something I'm involved with, don't know anything about it -- he lied on both counts," Adams told Fox News.

For his part, Holder is planning to open a review of the department's policies on investigations involving journalists. This includes a discussion with representatives from the media. Holder said Tuesday he hopes to have the meeting this week.

"I'm not satisfied," he said, when asked whether he had regrets about the course of the investigations so far.

Holder addressed the leak probes during a House hearing two weeks ago, under questioning by Democratic Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson. Johnson voiced concern that the Espionage Act of 1917 allows the prosecution of anyone who discloses classified information.

He said: "But we certainly need to protect the privacy of individuals, and we need to protect the ability ... of the press to engage in its First Amendment responsibilities to be free and to give us information about our government so as to keep the people informed."

Holder answered: "Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the opposite."

At the time, Johnson was referencing reports that the Justice Department secretly obtained the phone records of Associated Press journalists.

A few days later, it would emerge that the Justice Department in 2010 also sought the private emails from Rosen's account, as part of a case against accused leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. An FBI agent cited the Espionage Act in seeking those documents.

And on Friday, the Justice Department acknowledged that Holder was looped in on the decision-making in that case.

"The Department takes seriously the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. In recognition of this, the Department took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General," the department said.

Jesselyn Radack, an attorney who works with the Government Accountability Project and has represented accused leakers, told FoxNews.com that Holder's statement to the House committee was "at best hypocritical and at worst perjury."

Holder, though, could argue that, in fact, Rosen was never prosecuted -- and so his testimony was not misleading.

A federal law enforcement official said last week that the department had to establish probable cause in the affidavit in order to obtain the search warrant, per the terms of the Privacy Protection Act.

"Saying that there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime and actually charging the person with that crime are two very different things," the official said. "No reporter has been charged in this case. And, at this time, we do not anticipate bringing additional charges against anyone in this matter."

Karl Rove, former adviser to George W. Bush and a Fox News analyst, argued in a FoxNews.com opinion piece last week that, at the least, Holder has "a lot of explaining to do to Congress."

Meanwhile, there are conflicting accounts involving a Justice Department claim that it notified Fox News' parent company News Corp. of the investigation. Lawrence "Lon" Jacobs, News Corp.'s general counsel at the time, said they never got the apparent fax from the Justice Department that contained the information about Rosen.

"If the Justice Department wanted Fox to be advised, I think they would have sent the notification to Fox News not News Corp.," he said. "I don't know what fax number it went to but if it was faxed to my office it would have been received by my assistant and she would have notified me."

He said he would have notified Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes had he received it.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2UboCjX00

[American Patriot]

Brit Hume Hammers Juan Williams for Saying Eric Holder's the 'Exact Right Person' to Probe His Own Department

By Tim Graham | May 27, 2013 | 15:04
14 87 Reddit0 5
A A
Tim Graham's picture

On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume hammered at fellow Fox analyst Juan Williams for asserting Attorney General Eric Holder was “the exact right person” to investigate his own Justice Department’s excesses in probing journalists for leaks.

Not even Bob Schieffer was buying that idea on CBS. He said it "makes no sense." Williams tried to blame the Republicans and the Bush administration for the heightened leak investigations: [video below]

CHRIS WALLACE: Can you defend his decision to ask Eric Holder to investigate and review Eric Holder's actions?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Well, I think the first thing to say is that Republicans have been hammering Eric Holder and I think that hammer is Eric Holder's language, his own, to go after the leaks. That they have wanted him to pursue leaks that had to do with how bin Laden was killed to secret prisons to the attack on the cyber network in Iran that the U.S. had launched. Why is all this information flowing from the Obama White House? Is Obama trying to glamorize himself? All that.

That came from Republicans, and it has been something that the Bush administration started and it has been continued with a vengeance, to everyone’s surprise by this administration. In the direct response to your question, Chris, Eric Holder did not conduct the probe that led people to somehow come to the madhouse conclusion that James Rosen is somehow a co-conspirator. Is somehow ...

WALLACE: But wait a minute, was that not in the FBI affidavit seeking--

WILLIAMS: He signed the affidavit as Attorney General of the United States, he did not conduct the probe. So the question is, how can you go and,would come to the conclusion that a working reporter with a long-standing, excellent career in Washington is somehow now involved in espionage. That is the question.

WALLACE: Well, he is ...

BRIT HUME: The problem is, it went to Holder and he okayed it!

WILLIAMS: He okayed the work of his investigators, and so now as the attorney general--

HUME: You are saying he is not ultimately responsible as the head man of the Justice Department ...

WILLIAMS: Well, that's why ....

HUME: ... who personally signed off on this?

WILLIAMS: That's -- he signed off on -- the question ...

HUME: He signed off...

WILLIAMS: ... to go back and look at the work of the investigators ...

HUME: I understand that, but how he -- if he signed off on it, how can he investigate it?

WILLIAMS: Because now is an opportunity, and he is the exact right person as Atorney general of the United States to see what prosecutors did and how they came to this conclusion.

HUME: Well, he is ...

WILLIAMS: We've seen this ...

HUME: Wasn't he supposed to see all of that before he signed off on the affidavit?

WILLIAMS: You cannot see everything. I mean you -- what he did was to say, these are good people, he trusts his people. Now it's time for someone including ...

HUME: I don't know whether he said anything like that or not.

WILLIAMS: I understand--

HUME: What you do know is, and what we all know is that when that affidavit came to him, rife with assertions that this reporter doing his job, was acting in a criminal way, he okayed it!

Before Williams began talking strangely, Hume said treating Fox News reporter James Rosen like a potential criminal suspect is outrageous, and exposes Holder as a liar, or a bumbler:

That does not square with what Holder told Congress. And not only about the standards he would use, but also about his own involvement. It's going to be argued by a lot of people he was lying. At a minimum, I would say, it's another example of his being untrustworthy and I would say also bumbling. And it can't be reconciled, and the president's decision to have him review it, because it encompasses the Rosen case, obviously, means that he is in effect making inquiry into himself, which is a howling conflict of interest, not merely a potential one, but a clear one. So I don't even know how anybody could take him seriously for five minutes.

About the Author
Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Tim Graham on Twitter.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...#ixzz2UboYaz3i

[American Patriot]

Axelrod: Investigation of Fox News Journalist 'Disturbing'

Tuesday, 28 May 2013 12:32 PM

By Lisa Barron


Former Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod says he finds the Justice Department's probe of a Fox News reporter "disturbing."

Speaking Tuesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Axelrod also chastised the department's decision to label Fox's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator in its investigation of a national security leak.

Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?

"I do think there are real issues regarding the relationship with the media on this leak matter," said Axelrod, adding, "The notion of naming a journalist as a co-conspirator for receiving information is something that I find very disturbing."

He continued, "We have to figure out . . . how we deal with national security leaks and how we protect the freedom of the press and the freedom of reporters to operate. And certainly this Rosen case raises some very disturbing issues."

The Justice Department reportedly seized Rosen's personal email and used other surveillance methods to determine whether he was complicit in a State Department leak of information he included in a story saying U.S intelligence officials believed North Korea would likely test more nuclear weapons if the UN imposed new sanctions.

Federal authorities say Rosen may have acted as "an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in the leak.

"I don't think reporters should be considered criminals for doing their jobs, and it's the job of reporters to uncover fact," Axelrod said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/axe...#ixzz2UbohYbwK
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

[American Patriot]

Here it comes.

Holder "lied under oath".

Democrats AND Republicans are calling for him to step down.

Reports say Holder perjured himself, lied to Congress under oath

May 25, 2013 by Michael Dorstewitz

Email
Print

NBC News set off a firestorm when it reported that Attorney General Eric Holder had signed off on search warrant applications directed against Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen in 2009. Most publications, including even the far-left Huffington Post called for his head on a platter. Now that the dust has settled somewhat, commentators are asking, “Did Holder lie under oath?”


Photo credit weaselzippers.us




Following the earlier disclosure that the Justice Department had seized the telephone records of Associated Press reporters and offices during a two-month period, Holder was invited to testify before a House Judiciary hearing on oversight held May 15.


During the course of that hearing, the attorney general was asked what was then considered a relatively softball question by Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia about the possibility of prosecuting reporters in addition to leakers. Holder dismissed it as being pretty much outside of the realm of imagination.

First of all you’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material. This has not fared well in American history… In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

The Justice Department confirmed Friday the NBC report of the day before that Holder approved the Rosen search warrant application in 2009. The government accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in its search warrant application, something that, according to his testimony, Holder had not “ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”


Given this, it’s apparent that Holder lied to Congress on the 15th. It may also be that he lied to the judge. The DOJ’s statement in its search warrant application accusing Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” may very well have been a sham to get a judge to sign the search warrant. If that was the case, he also lied to the judge.


The New Yorker described Friday the extraordinary measures the Justice Department took to keep the Rosen search warrant a secret, and reported that two judges had ordered DOJ to notify Rosen that his private emails were being snooped.


The disclosure order was reversed on appeal in September of 2010 by Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, and it has remained a secret until The Washington Post disclosed its existence on Sunday.


Given Holder’s approval of that search warrant application, DOJ’s desire to keep it under wraps is understandable. And now that it’s public, it’s apparent Holder lied in his official capacity — certainly to Congress and maybe to three federal judges.

[American Patriot]

Holder’s Regrets and Repairs

by Daniel Klaidman May 28, 2013 4:45 AM EDT How the attorney general feels about his own role in the Fox News case—and how he plans to prevent it from happening again. By Daniel Klaidman.

It was Friday, May 17, and officials at the Department of Justice had gotten word that The Washington Post was working on an explosive story: a reporter had obtained an affidavit for a search warrant to seize a Fox News journalist’s personal emails.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice on May 15, 2013. (Alex Wong/Getty)

Controversy was already swirling around the DOJ over the recent revelation that federal prosecutors had seized the phone records of reporters and editors from the Associated Press in a separate leak probe. Media organizations, civil-liberties groups, and members of Congress were in an uproar about the AP case, which they regarded as an appalling intrusion on freedom of the press.

Now came the Post’s discovery of the Fox affidavit, which was part of a three-year-old FBI investigation into a State Department contract employee who had allegedly leaked highly classified information about North Korea. And this case had an ominous wrinkle that the AP case had lacked: in the affidavit, investigators had indicated that the reporter himself, James Rosen, might also be guilty of a crime—for simply soliciting the information.

DOJ officials, realizing the issue could turn into a press feeding frenzy, went into damage-control mode. Over the weekend they scrambled to prepare their response, including readying a press statement assuring that Justice had no plans to indict Rosen.

But for Attorney General Eric Holder, the gravity of the situation didn’t fully sink in until Monday morning when he read the Post’s front-page story, sitting at his kitchen table. Quoting from the affidavit, the story detailed how agents had tracked Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, perused his private emails, and traced the timing of his calls to the State Department security adviser suspected of leaking to him. Then the story, quoting the stark, clinical language of the affidavit, described Rosen as “at the very least ... an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” in the crime. Holder knew that Justice would be besieged by the twin leak probes; but, according to aides, he was also beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse.

The sweeping seizure of the AP phone records had thrown Justice on the defensive. But at least in that case Holder had some personal insulation; having been interviewed by the FBI, he’d recused himself from the investigation and, thus, had not personally signed off on the subpoenas. In the Fox case, however, Holder knew he bore a direct measure of responsibility. He had approved a search-warrant application that equated a reporter’s newsgathering activities with criminal conduct. That put Holder at the center of the brewing controversy, all while the Obama administration was being buffeted over allegations that the IRS had targeted conservative groups and by the continuing Benghazi tempest.

By week’s end, Holder knew he had to be proactive in stemming the criticism and restoring the department’s credibility with the press. He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department’s internal guidelines for investigating leaks to safeguard the media against overly intrusive tactics. (Obama announced a review of the guidelines during a major speech on counterterrorism last Thursday.) Meanwhile, on Friday, Holder made a round of calls to Capitol Hill in an attempt to mollify concerned lawmakers. In calls to Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Holder said he understood why there had been such an outcry over his department’s actions. As one of Holder’s advisers put it, the message was: “Look we get it. We understand why this is so controversial, and we’re ready to make changes to find the right balance.” At the same time, Holder enlisted their help to get a media-shield law passed in Congress. (On Sunday, Schumer announced the formation of a bipartisan “gang of eight” to press for the legislation.)

As attorney general, a position at the intersection of law, politics, and investigations, Holder has been at the center of partisan controversy almost since taking office. But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department’s—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves. “Look, Eric sees himself fundamentally as a progressive, not some Torquemada out to silence the press,” says a friend who asked not to be identified. And yet late last week even the progressive Huffington Postwas calling for Holder to step down over the leaks furor. (Obama has continued to express confidence in his attorney general, and Holder has given no indication that he would step aside.)


On Sunday, politicians and pundits weighed in on the Holder controversy.

‘Look, Eric sees himself fundamentally as a progressive, not some Torquemada out to silence the press.’

In an interview, Holder acknowledged that there was considerable room for improvement in how Justice handles leak cases, casting the episode as a kind of teaching moment for his department and himself. “While both of these cases were handled within the law and according to Justice Department guidelines,” he told The Daily Beast, “they are reminders of the unique role the news media plays in our democratic system, and signal that both our laws and guidelines need to be updated.” He added, “This is an opportunity for the department to consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.”

To begin the process of recalibrating that balance, Holder is initiating a dialogue with representatives of major media organizations. Invitations go out today, with the first meeting taking place possibly as early as this week. Holder’s aides say he is encouraging a no-holds-barred conversation with the goal of updating and strengthening DOJ guidelines. But Holder’s own personal soul searching has already begun, with, among other things, the question of why he signed off on an affidavit that in retrospect he believed may have crossed the line.

As an explanation, if not a justification, Justice officials say that the department’s leadership had come under withering pressure to investigate leaks from both within the intelligence community and Congress. On multiple occasions, Holder fielded calls from the CIA director and other top officials demanding leak investigations. Meanwhile, Congress was also on Holder’s case to staunch the leaks in national-security cases. On December 3, 2009—just a few months before he approved the affidavit in the Fox case—Holder, FBI director Robert Mueller, and director of national intelligence Dennis Blair were hauled before a secret session of the Senate Intelligence Committee to explain why they weren’t punishing more leakers. For its part, the White House never discouraged aggressive probes to find and punish leakers.

Justice officials also point to gaps in the DOJ guidelines to explain some of the more controversial actions taken by prosecutors. For one thing, unlike subpoenas to the media, search warrants are not even covered by the Justice Department’s guidelines. That meant that in the Rosen case, the decision to issue the search warrant was not subjected to the many layers of scrutiny that are required when subpoenas are issued for a reporter’s records or communications. The Rosen warrant, for example, bypassed the department’s Office of Public Affairs, which would have been uniquely suited to provide advice to the attorney general because of its sensitivity to the interests of the press.

But ultimately none of that fully explains why Holder would have signed off on such a controversial search warrant. Holder, his aides say, believes there may also be a cultural factor at the root of his decision. Prosecutors tend to have a somewhat insular mindset, not always able to see clearly beyond the walls of their cases. They are often dogged investigators, trained to vacuum up as much evidence as possible to sustain convictions in courts of law. That sometimes means taking maximum advantage of every law and procedural rule. It also can mean seeing every activity of those in their sights through a more sinister lens than may be justified.

Rosen had set up fairly elaborate methods to try to obscure his relationship with his source. He used pseudonyms to communicate with him and simple coded messages to indicate when they should talk. As Rosen’s activities were scrutinized in the department’s National Security Division, his behavior may have looked more to prosecutors like an espionage case than what it truly was: a journalist reporting on sensitive national-security matters, while trying to protect the identity of his source. Prosecutors even seized on Rosen’s use of “flattery” and his playing to the “ego and vanity” of his source as a reason for suspicion, a stunning conflation of basic reporting guile with spycraft.

Holder’s rise to attorney general, of course, wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t have some understanding of the interplay between politics and the press in Washington. But he’s also a product of the Justice Department and still, in many ways, has the mindset of the prosecutor he was for most of his career. “He’s a prosecutor, and prosecutors by nature push very hard,” says Matthew Miller, Holder’s former spokesman.

“Sometimes they go too far,” adds Miller, who remains close to Holder. “But that is not who he is, and I think he understands that the department needs to reconsider how it handles these cases, and you’re going to see him lead that process.”

But the problem won’t be solved with media-sensitivity training. Lawyers respond best to hard and fast rules and structures to enforce them. That is why Holder’s focus will be on pushing to update and improve his department’s internal guidelines for dealing with the media. While no adjustments to the guidelines will be proposed until after Holder receives input from media organizations, his aides say a number of changes are already being discussed.

Among them would be stating a clear presumption in the guidelines against seizing reporters’ work product, either through subpoena or search warrant. Currently, the guidelines require that prosecutors “take all reasonable steps to obtain the information through alternative sources or means.” (A presumption test would be a higher standard to overcome.) Another priority will be making sure that search-warrant applications are subjected to the same level of internal scrutiny that subpoenas currently receive before they are approved by the attorney general. Some changes, meanwhile, will involve simply bringing the rules into the Internet Age. Originally established in 1970 and updated in 1982 to include telephone records, they don’t even mention emails, texts, or other forms of digital communication, like social media.

Another possible reform under consideration would be the creation of stricter rules requiring advance notification before prosecutors can seize media phone records or information relating to other forms of communication. (In the AP case, the government secretly seized the phone records from 20 lines used by as many as 100 journalists.) While the guidelines currently say prosecutors must give prior notification before issuing a subpoena, there is an exception when doing so would “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.” Some DOJ officials worry that loophole is being abused and that prosecutors may be invoking the exception to avoid protracted litigation with the targeted news organizations. (Federal prosecutors have been particularly keen to avoid clashes before Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia, who has quashed subpoenas aimed at the media.)

Perhaps the most significant structural flaw in the current system, however, is that the fox is guarding the henhouse. Prosecutors whose main interest is catching and convicting leakers call the shots on how aggressively to pursue reporters as part of their investigations. That is why, Holder believes, there is ultimately no better solution than passing a media-shield law that would place those decisions in the hands of an independent federal judge. But until then, Holder will be the judge—a little more experienced, and perhaps a little wiser.

[American Patriot]

Published On: Tue, May 28th, 2013
Politics / US News | By Brandon Jones

Eric Holder signed off on Fox News, James Rosen monitoring, calls for resignation begin

Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal email, NBC News’ Michael Isikoff reported.


The report places Holder at the epicenter of this controversial clash between the press and the government.


Photo donkeyhotey donkeyhotey.worpdress.com



The warrant he approved named Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation, causing many to warn that the Justice Department was potentially criminalizing journalism.


The warrant also approved the tracking of Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, as well as his communications with his source, Stephen Kim.
The Justice Department later said that it did not intend to press any charges against Rosen.


“The Department takes seriously the First Amendment right to freedom of the press,” the department said in a written statement, provided late Friday at the start of the holiday weekend. “In recognition of this, the Department took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General.


“After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act. And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant,” the statement said.
While there have been calls for Eric Holder to resign, this new implication may generate even a louder outcry.

[American Patriot]

Eric Holder Has Committed Perjury and Will Have to Resign

Added by Graham Noble on May 24, 2013.

President Obama is probably having a TGIF sort of day: His speech on drone policy and the war on terror left everyone with more questions than answers. Now, former IRS head Doug Shulman has discussed visiting the White House 118 times in two years. In light of this, it is beyond the reach of human imagination to suggest that the President was unaware of IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. If those two issues weren’t headache enough, Obama now faces, probably, the biggest embarrassment of his Presidency – so far: United States Attorney General Eric Holder has committed perjury and will have to resign.


Perjury is commonly thought of as lying under oath. This is not strictly true; perjury is the act of knowingly swearing a false oath, as when one swears to tell the truth whilst being fully aware that they have no intention of doing so. During the hearings on Operation Fast and Furious – the Justice Department’s (DoJ) disastrous gun-running scheme between the U.S. and Mexico – Eric Holder stated clearly that he had no personal knowledge of the operation until just shortly before the it came to light. Emails obtained by Congress later revealed that direct Justice Department involvement in what was, essentially, an operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was greater than had been previously admitted. Republicans were reluctant to go after Holder himself and maintained that they had seen no direct evidence of his personal involvement with Fast and Furious.


This time around, Holder has clearly perjured himself: The first step was when he personally gave sworn testimony at a congressional hearing on Justice Department oversight. The second step came during the hearing itself. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) tiptoed around the subject of the Justice Department’s probe of the Associated Press (AP). Johnson devoted considerable time to playing the role of apologist; suggesting that it was perfectly fine for members of the press to be investigated if national security was at stake. He was persistent in his attempt to put words into Holder’s mouth, whereupon the Attorney General completely confounded him with the following statement: “with regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be wise policy.”


According to an NBC report, however, the Justice Department has acknowledged that a search warrant for Fox reporter James Rosen’s personal email account had high-level approval, including “discussions” with the Attorney General. Clearly, then, Holder was aware of – and approved – the search warrant. The warrant itself was issued as part of an ongoing investigation into a possible leak of information sensitive to national security. Therefore, when Holder said, under oath, that “…potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material…is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of…,” he committed perjury. During the same hearing, Holder went on to explain his intention of going after those who leak information to the press, rather than prosecuting members of the press themselves. The leak investigation was not targeted directly at Rosen, but, rather, at former intelligence analyst Stephen Kim. Kim has now been indicted for leaking classified information to Rosen. Holder’s problem lies in his use of the word “potential”; the Justice Department probe of Rosen could have “potentially” lead to, in Holder’s words “prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.”

Holder has, indeed, been involved in the matter, despite saying that it was not something he had “…ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”


The Rosen affair comes directly on the heels of revelations that the DoJ seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters; also a “potential” case of “prosecution of the press.”


Calls are mounting for Holder to step down or be fired. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) told CBS’s “Face the Nation” “I think it’s past time for him to go and for the president to appoint somebody who the public can have confidence in,” Republican Chairman Reince Priebus was one of the first to call for Holder’s resignation, according to a report in the British Daily Mail. “Attorney General Eric Holder, in permitting the Justice Department to issue secret subpoenas to spy on Associated Press reporters, has trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution” he said.


It is not just Republicans who want Holder out: According to the same Daily Mail report, Keith Olbermann, a former host on the failed Current TV channel, tweeted “’If Mr. Holder continues to support this rogue action, he should resign.” The far Left Huffington Post also carried the headline “TIME TO GO” with a picture of Holder beneath it.
The Obama administration has shown itself, on more than one occasion, to be remarkably tone-deaf and, one could say, arrogant, when responding to the numerous scandals that have plagued Obama’s presidency; most of which have been swept under the rug by many of the same media organizations now, apparently, so outraged by the DoJ’s actions. In this case, however, Eric Holder has lost any shred of credibility he ever had and it is extremely difficult to imagine that he will remain at his post for very much longer.
Written by Graham J Noble

[American Patriot]

House panel reviews whether Holder misled lawmakers on reporter records grab

By Judson Berger

Published May 28, 2013

FoxNews.com

Holder's changing tune on involvement in journalist...
Can the Department of Justice investigate itself?
Increasing calls for investigation into DOJ scandal

A House committee is looking into whether Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress when he testified two weeks ago about the department's pursuit of journalists' personal records, an aide confirmed to FoxNews.com on Tuesday.

Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, Holder insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or knew about.

But days later, it emerged that the Justice Department obtained access to the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen -- after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea.

Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act.

Asked about potential problems with Holder's testimony, a House Judiciary Committee aide told FoxNews.com that the committee is "further investigating this matter." The committee later clarified they are "looking into" Holder's testimony.

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who in recent years has emerged as a prominent conservative critic of his former employer, said Tuesday that Holder seems to have misled Congress.

"Holder said it's not something I'm involved with, don't know anything about it -- he lied on both counts," Adams told Fox News.

For his part, Holder is planning to open a review of the department's policies on investigations involving journalists. This includes a discussion with representatives from the media. Holder said Tuesday he hopes to have the meeting this week.

"I'm not satisfied," he said, when asked whether he had regrets about the course of the investigations so far.

Holder addressed the leak probes during a House hearing two weeks ago, under questioning by Democratic Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson. Johnson voiced concern that the Espionage Act of 1917 allows the prosecution of anyone who discloses classified information.

He said: "But we certainly need to protect the privacy of individuals, and we need to protect the ability ... of the press to engage in its First Amendment responsibilities to be free and to give us information about our government so as to keep the people informed."

Holder answered: "Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the opposite."

At the time, Johnson was referencing reports that the Justice Department secretly obtained the phone records of Associated Press journalists.

A few days later, it would emerge that the Justice Department in 2010 also sought the private emails from Rosen's account, as part of a case against accused leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. An FBI agent cited the Espionage Act in seeking those documents.

And on Friday, the Justice Department acknowledged that Holder was looped in on the decision-making in that case.

"The Department takes seriously the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. In recognition of this, the department took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the department, including discussions with the attorney general," the department said.

Jesselyn Radack, an attorney who works with the Government Accountability Project and has represented accused leakers, told FoxNews.com that Holder's statement to the House committee was "at best hypocritical and at worst perjury."

Holder, though, could argue that, in fact, Rosen was never prosecuted -- and so his testimony was not misleading.

A federal law enforcement official said last week that the department had to establish probable cause in the affidavit in order to obtain the search warrant, per the terms of the Privacy Protection Act.

"Saying that there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime and actually charging the person with that crime are two very different things," the official said. "No reporter has been charged in this case. And, at this time, we do not anticipate bringing additional charges against anyone in this matter."

Karl Rove, former adviser to George W. Bush and a Fox News analyst, argued in a FoxNews.com opinion piece last week that, at the least, Holder has "a lot of explaining to do to Congress."

Meanwhile, there are conflicting accounts involving a Justice Department claim that it notified Fox News' parent company, News Corp., of the investigation. Lawrence "Lon" Jacobs, News Corp.'s general counsel at the time, said they never got the apparent fax from the Justice Department that contained the information about Rosen.

"If the Justice Department wanted Fox to be advised, I think they would have sent the notification to Fox News, not News Corp.," he said. "I don't know what fax number it went to, but if it was faxed to my office it would have been received by my assistant and she would have notified me."

He said he would have notified Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes had he received it.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2UcJqmuxe

[American Patriot]

Eric Holder Personally Approved Fox News Email Warrant

Posted: May 23, 2013

Things are looking worse and worse for the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder, and even the Obama administration. The reason? A warrant that allowed the DOJ to search Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal email.


A warrant that was signed off on by Mr. Holder himself.




NBC News‘ Michael Isikoff reported Thursday that Holder actually OK’d the controversial search himself. The report puts a face to the greatest violation of press freedom by a government body in recent memory. That face belongs to Eric Holder.


The warrant named Rosen as a “con-conspirator” in a leak investigation, with the implication that the DOJ was on the verge of criminalizing journalism. The same warrant approved the tracking of Rosen’s movements as well as his communications with his State Department source.


The DOJ said that they never intended to press charges on Rosen, but the warrant is chilling nonetheless. While the AG is required to approve requests to search journalists’ materials, emails are not up for search.


Holder has played coy about his involvement in the Rosen scandal (as well as the Associated Press scandal, the investigation of which he infamously recused himself from), saying that he’s not sure how many times he has authorized the search of journalists’ records.


Fox News chief Roger Ailes personally responded to the revelation in a staff memo.


“We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime,” Ailes wrote.


“I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it.”









Most journalists and media outlets are actually flocking to the defense of Fox News, as well. Left, right or somewhere in between, many have voiced their support for James Rosen and have condemned the Obama administration … if not for instigating the scandals, for standing by and allowing them to happen.

Dear many of our commenters: this is one time when you should be siding with Fox News huff.to/10IM6mT
— HuffPost Media (@HuffPostMedia) May 20, 2013

My experience dealing with @jamesrosenfnc was unpleasant and contentious. And I fully support him against this unwarranted act by DOJ

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 20, 2013

.@marklandler on leaks: “The question is, who sets the tone? It’s difficult for the WH to argue #POTUS is merely a bystander in the process”

— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) May 20, 2013