Obama Administration turns against the Free Press

[American Patriot]

Senators say Eric Holder can't review self

By Washington Times (DC) May 28, 2013 6:50 am



Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.s direct involvement in the Justice Departments decisions to spy on the press should disqualify him from heading any review of the unfolding controversy, Republicans said Sunday.


Questions have been raised about the attorney generals role in two Justice Department investigations of leaks, one involving a massive seizure of Associated Press phone records and another an aggressive probe of Fox News reporter James Rosens private emails.


According to multiple media reports, Mr. Holder personally approved targeting Mr. Rosen. He earlier told Congress that he had recused himself from the decision to seize AP phone records.


President Obama, responding to critics from both parties who say the Justice Department is undermining press freedoms, said Thursday he has directed Mr. Holder to lead a "review." That idea has been flatly rejected by Republicans, several of whom voiced their objections on Sundays political talk shows.


"A total conflict of interest," Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, said Sunday on CBS "Face the Nation."


"You cannot investigate yourself. Allowing the very person that authorized the two things we are aware of today to investigate whether he did that appropriately is inappropriate," Mr. Coburn said. "Theres an inherent conflict of interest in me judging whether I did something and reporting it to the president."


Mr. Coburn stopped short of calling for a special prosecutor, but Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and said it was "time to have a special counsel to come forward or some independent group to look at it."


Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, wouldnt go that far, but he acknowledged he has questions about Mr. Holders role.


"I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel. Im not ready to do this at this point. Id like to know if Holder has any conflict in here beyond what weve heard when it comes to the Fox case," Mr. Durbin said on the Fox program.


Another Democrat, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York said "the system is clearly broken" and that he and Mr. Graham will reoffer their proposal, with the bipartisan support of six other senators, for a "media shield law" that would tighten judicial oversight of Justice Department and law enforcement.


"Well be announcing that we have four Democrats and four Republicans another 'Gang of Eight," Mr. Schumer said on CBS "Face The Nation." He did not specify who would join him and Mr. Graham.


The proposal would require the government to first go before a judge to ask a news organization to divulge sources. That judge would "impose a balancing test" between free press and government need for the information.


"You always need set rules and an independent arbiter. We have neither now," he said.


The Department of Justice has come under fire amid revelations that Mr. Holder personally approved an investigation of Mr. Rosen after his 2009 Fox News story on North Korean missile tests that cited intelligence community sources.


In an effort to uncover what some administration officials considered a national security leak, Mr. Rosen was named a potential criminal "co-conspirator" and Mr. Holder signed off on warrants to allow agents to track the reporters movements at the State Department and monitor his phone records and emails.


"James Rosen is a lot of things, but a criminal co-conspirator he is not," Mr. Graham said. "Were beginning to criminalize journalism, and I think that should worry us all."
Mr. Graham also called for a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.


The president said Thursday that he was "troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable."

[Malsua]

They need to summon Holder to congress and slap him in chains. If they strapped him onto the nose cone of a rocket and test launched him to orbit, I'd be ok with it.

[American Patriot]

AG Eric Holder on shaky ground over AP scandal

By John Carlson Published: May 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM PDT

Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation's top law enforcement official, is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 15, 2013, prior to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the Justice. Department. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte,R-Va., wants to know more about the unwarranted targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department's secret seizure of telephone records at The Associated Press. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Listen

John Carlson makes a prediction that Attorney General Eric Holder will be the first to resign in disgrace for the big three scandals in which the White House is currently embroiled.

[American Patriot]

Hahahahahahaha


Ok, read this:


Michael Calderone Become a fan
michael.calderone@huffingtonpost.com







Eric Holder To Meet With Washington Bureau Chiefs Amid Leak Investigation Criticism

Posted: 05/29/2013 12:46 pm EDT | Updated: 05/29/2013 1:48 pm EDT











NEW YORK -- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to meet this week with the Washington bureau chiefs of several major media outlets to discuss the Justice Department’s guidelines for dealing with journalists in leak investigations.


It's not yet certain exactly when the meeting (or meetings) will take place, but a Justice Department official confirmed to The Huffington Post that it would be sometime over the next two days. Politico's Mike Allen reported Wednesday morning that the DOJ began contacting bureau chiefs on Tuesday. The Huffington Post's Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim, also has been contacted.


The news of a meeting between Holder and the bureau chiefs comes amid widespread criticism from journalists and civil liberties advocates over the the DOJ's seizure of Associated Press phone records and an accusation that Fox News reporter James Rosen could be part of a criminal conspiracy for his reporting.


The fact that Holder is meeting with the bureau chiefs is on the record, according to a network source, but the actual discussion is expected to be off the record. Media organizations will surely want such a newsworthy meeting with the attorney general to be on the record, and it remains to be seen if they will agree to meet under off-the-record ground rules.


Nanda Chitre, acting director of the DOJ's public affairs office, confirmed to The Huffington Post that the meeting will be off the record.


President Obama announced Thursday that Holder agreed to discuss the DOJ’s guidelines with a group of media organizations for a departmental review due July 12.
In a statement after Obama’s speech, the DOJ said that Holder would “consult a diverse and representative group of media organizations.”


When the press and government are battling over issues of access or press freedom, it's common to bring in top Washington-based editors and executives in hopes of coming to a resolution.


Last week, ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton told The Huffington Post that the “strongest voices in journalism for protecting press freedoms remain the collective Washington bureau chiefs."


The AP has been known to take the lead among news organizations in pushing back against off-the-record or background ground rules for meetings with government officials. An AP spokeswoman did not respond specifically as to whether the news organization would agree to go off the record with Holder, but provided the following statement:

We recognize that the guidelines need improvement and support a review under the right conditions. The Justice Department has reached out and we are seeking more information from them about it.

This story has been updated to include comment from the Associated Press.

[American Patriot]

Media parlay: Holder to meet with press after leak probe

Aliyah Frumin1:47 PM on 05/29/2013



U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Let the Eric Holder mea culpa tour begin.


The attorney general–whose Justice Department is coming under fire for authorizing subpoenas for journalists’ personal information–is going into damage control mode, meeting with several media organizations this week as part of an agency review that President Obama has mandated. NBC News said it planned to attend the meeting.


The review comes after news surfaced that Holder greenlighted a controversial search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private emails over a story he did about North Korea’s nuclear program. The Justice Department is also coming under scrutiny for secretly seizing phone records of Associated Press journalists for an investigation into the leaking of information about a CIA operation in Yemen to stop a bomb plot. In the latter probe, Holder has insisted he recused himself from the matter and that it was his deputy, James Cole, who approved the subpoena.


Obama, who says he was unaware of the DOJ’s practices, has carefully tried to strike a balance between national security concerns and a commitment to a free press. The president said last week that he directed Holder to review the existing guidelines on subpoenas related to reporters and to meet with media organizations to voice their concerns. Holder is expected to report back to the president by July 12.


Obama called on New York Sen. Chuck Schumer earlier this month to reintroduce media shield legislation to protect the press. Schumer announced Sunday that he has formed a new bipartisan “Gang of 8” to draft a media shield law. A bipartisan group in the House has also backed the legislation.


That hasn’t stopped some who have gone as far to call on Holder to resign, including Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. On Wednesday, Jonathan Turley, a prominent liberal attorney and law professor, also said Holder should be “fired” in a USA Today column.


Turley wrote that Holder has “supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process.”


The GOP-led House doesn’t seem to be loosening their grip on Holder.


The House Judiciary Committee now wants to determine whether the attorney general may have lied under oath during his recent testimony before the panel. In a letter sent to Holder on Wednesday, the committee asked Holder to clarify the department’s policy on how it handled search warrants for Rosen, the Fox News reporter.


Two weeks prior—amid revelations that the DOJ targeted the AP—Holder said he had not been personally involved in the potential prosecution of a journalist who made sensitive information public. “With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy,” he said.


Since that testimony, NBC News has reported that Holder approved a search warrant for Rosen’s email. A department official did not immediately return a request for comment.


“How can you claim to have never “been involved” in the potential prosecution of the press but were admittedly involved in discussions regarding Mr. Rosen?” GOP Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin wrote in the letter.


A source close to Holder told Politico that looking back, the attorney general regrets parts of the investigation involving Rosen and in regard to the AP probe, the DOJ may have took in more phone lines than necessary.

[American Patriot]

Posted: Wednesday, 29 May 2013 2:08PM


Senator Pat Roberts calls for Holder to resign

OVERLAND PARK - Attorney general Eric Holder is under increasing pressure to step down.

In an exclusive interview with KMBZ's Bill Grady Wednesday afternoon, Senator Pat Roberts says Holder should resign.

Eric Holder personally approved a decision to subpoena Fox News telephone records as the Justice Department investigated an unauthorized leak regarding North Korea, officials said on Tuesday.

The Justice Department did not mention the subpoena when it issued a statement on Friday describing how Holder had vetted a decision to seek a search warrant for the contents of an email account used by Fox News reporter James Rosen.

[American Patriot]

Alliance for Women in Media and 56 Other Groups Demand Answers on Targeting of Journalists
PRWeb
Published 1:01 pm, Wednesday, May 29, 2013
PRESS RELEASE


The Alliance for Women in Media is one of fifty-seven national groups that sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding a full, transparent account of the Justice Department’s targeting of journalists and whistleblowers on Friday, May 24.

(PRWEB) May 29, 2013

The Alliance for Women in Media (AWM) is one of fifty-seven national groups that sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding a full, transparent account of the Justice Department’s targeting of journalists and whistleblowers on Friday, May 24.

AWM and the groups believe that actions, which expand secrecy and intimidate those trying to shed more light on our government run counter to the Obama administration’s promise of a new era of openness and transparency. In the letter, the groups demand a full account of the Justice Department’s targeting of journalists and whistleblowers so that they can advocate for appropriate action to protect everyone’s constitutional rights and push for stronger legal standards to protect all types of information gathering and sharing.

“For over 62 years, the Alliance for Women in Media has represented women in all forms of electronic media, promoting issues such as women’s media ownership and positive and realistic portrayals of women and girls,” states Erin M. Fuller, AWM’s president. “Freedom of the press is such an essential element to our allied professions, industries and the partners with which we work, and AWM was proud to stand with the 57 organizations demanding increased accountability on this issue.”

Representing millions of Americans, the groups include Free Press, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Communications Workers of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Sunlight Foundation and the Writers Guild of America East.

Read the full text of the letter and the list of signers here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Alliance for Women in Media (AWM): The Alliance for Women in Media leverages the promise, passion and power of women in all forms of media. Formerly known as American Women in Radio & Television, AWM is the longest-established professional association dedicated to advancing women in media and entertainment, and celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2011. The Alliance for Women in Media carries forth its mission by educating, advocating and acting as a resource to its members and the industry at large via inspired thought leadership that illuminates areas of societal need.

About the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation: The Alliance for Women in Media Foundation (formerly known as The Foundation of American Women in Radio & Television) supports and promotes educational programs, charitable activities, public service campaigns and scholarships to benefit the public, the electronic media and allied fields. The Alliance for Women in Media Foundation has created partnerships and joint-initiatives with the National Middle School Association, the Emma Bowen Foundation, the American Red Cross and other organizations that are philosophically aligned with the mission of the Foundation. The Foundation also supports Empowering America®, an initiative which pays tribute to many of America’s most pioneering and inspiring women. Through this program, the Foundation provides Empowering America® educational collateral to needy urban middle schools around the country. The Foundation also produces nationally acclaimed recognition programs, including the Gracie Awards®, a live gala that honors exemplary programming created for, by, and about women.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebA...eb10776406.htm

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/business/p...#ixzz2UhxJeMKA

[American Patriot]

House Republicans Accuse Holder of 'Contradictions' in Testimony on Press E-Mails

Tweet






By Billy House
Updated: May 29, 2013 | 2:12 p.m.
May 29, 2013 | 1:31 p.m.

Attorney General Eric Holder pauses during a news conference at the Justice Department on May 14. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)




Top House Judiciary Committee Republicans on Wednesday demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder explain what they say is a contradiction in his sworn testimony at a May 15 hearing and subsequent revelations about his department's obtaining a search warrant in 2010 for e-mails of a Fox News reporter.


In a letter to Holder, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., stop short of outright accusing Holder of perjury. But they are insisting that he respond to a list of questions by no later than June 5.


"We believe--and we hope you will agree--it is imperative that the Committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement in and approval of these search warrants," their letter states.


Under scrutiny is Holder's testimony to the committee during a May 15 hearing regarding the use of the Espionage Act to prosecute members of the media for publishing classified material.


What had prompted the questioning was the only publicly known instance at the time of the Justice Department obtaining phone records of journalists without notifying them, a matter involving the records of about 20 Associated Press journalists.


In a back-and-forth with Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., at that hearing, Holder at one point said, "With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy."


But the Justice Department has since reportedly confirmed media reports that Holder in May 2010 may have personally signed off on the application to the judge for the seizure of phone records and personal e-mails of James Rosen, a Fox News Channel reporter. The warrant was issued in the investigation of the publication of an article in June 2009 that was said to contain classified material.


In their letter, Goodlatte and Sensenbrenner tell Holder, "Subsequent media reports have stated that the Justice Department issued confirmation that the investigation of Mr. Rosen and the search warrant application for his private e-mails was approved 'at the highest levels' of the Justice Department, including 'discussions' with Attorney General Eric Holder."


Their letter goes on: "Whether you personally approved the search warrant request or were merely part of 'discussions' relating to a search warrant for Mr. Rosen's e-mails, it is clear now that you were aware that the Department was engaged in a criminal investigation of a member of the media as far back as 2010."


"This fact contradicts your testimony before the committee," they write.


"How can you claim to have never even 'heard of' the potential prosecution of the press but were, at a minimum, involved in discussions regarding Mr. Rosen?" their letter asks. It goes on to demand answers to this and other questions such as whether he personally read the search-warrant application and affidavit, and how his approval was "memorialized"?


The letter to Holder follows by a day the issuing of subpoenas to the State Department by the head of another House Committee--House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, R-Calif.--for administration e-mails and other documents and communications regarding the attack last year on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

[American Patriot]

Groups Demand Answers On Targeting Of Journalists

By North Country Gazette On May 24, 2013 · Leave a Comment









WASHINGTON — On Friday, Free Press and 57 civil liberties, digital rights, press freedom and public interest groups sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding a full, transparent account of the Justice Department’s targeting of journalists and whistleblowers.


Representing millions of Americans, the groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Communications Workers of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Sunlight Foundation and the Writers Guild of America East. (The full list of signers can be found below.)


In addition, Free Press delivered more than 16,000 petition signatures urging the Justice Department to protect press freedom.


Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:


“The Justice Department’s abuse of press freedom is appalling, and the consequences could be far-reaching. This is not just a matter of concern for journalists or newsrooms; it’s an issue at the heart of our democracy. We can’t hold government and corporate leaders accountable or have an informed public unless we support truth-seeking journalism. President Obama says journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. But actions speak louder than words, and guidelines only work if they’re actually followed. The broad range of groups speaking out today signal the beginning of a broader popular movement defending press freedom. Our message to the attorney general and the president is clear: End the targeting and intimidation of journalists and whistleblowers.”


Read the full text of the letter and the list of signers below:


May 24, 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder
Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20530


Dear Sirs:


More than 50 journalism and press organizations recently wrote you to voice grave concerns about the Justice Department’s subpoena of telephone records belonging to Associated Press reporters and editors. We write today as a coalition of civil rights, public interest, transparency and media reform groups to express similar concerns.
Your actions have threatened press freedom — and endangered the health of our democracy. As groups working to strengthen democratic institutions and foster more open government, we are deeply concerned that your agency’s actions will hinder efforts to make government more transparent and accountable to the public.


Following years of aggressive leak investigations, the Justice Department’s overreaching subpoena of AP phone records sets a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, it appears to violate the Department’s own rules and guidelines. The impact of the Justice Department’s actions is already being felt. AP CEO Gary Pruitt reports that sources are now less willing to talk to reporters. And journalists from newsrooms large and small have noted the chilling effects on their coverage of the government.


The latest news suggests that the subpoenas were even broader than initially reported. In addition, details are emerging about a case in which the Justice Department also seized phone records from reporters at Fox News and labeled one of its journalists a “co-conspirator” for simply doing his job.


These troubling developments raise real questions about the scope of the Department’s surveillance of journalists. At a recent congressional hearing, Mr. Holder, you couldn’t recall how many times the Justice Department has subpoenaed journalists’ records. We need to know the full extent of your Department’s crackdown against journalists.


In the digital age, reporting is no longer confined to America’s traditional newsrooms. As such, threats to press freedom threaten anyone who seeks to share information about official actions using a cellphone, social media service or website. The Obama administration promised a new era of openness and transparency. Your actions, which expand secrecy and intimidate those trying to shed more light on our government, run counter to that promise.


We demand a full accounting of the Justice Department’s targeting of journalists and whistleblowers. We need this information so that we can advocate for appropriate action to protect everyone’s constitutional rights and push for stronger legal standards to protect all types of information gathering and sharing.


The Justice Department must explain its overreach in this matter. Furthermore, we call on the Department to stop violating its existing rules and cease targeting of individuals and organizations reporting on government activity.


Sincerely,


ACCESS
Alliance for Women in Media
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
The Banyan Project
Brave New Films
Center for Democracy and Technology
ColorOfChange.org
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
CREDO Action
CultureStrike
Defending Dissent Foundation
Digital Media Law Project
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Georgia First Amendment Foundation
IndyMedia
Investigative News Network
iSolon.org
Katy’s Exposure Blog
Knowledge Ecology International
LAMP: Learning About Multimedia Project
Media Alliance
The Media Consortium
Media Mobilizing Project
Mine Safety and Health News
MuckRock
National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Freedom of Information Coalition
National Priorities Project
Native Public Media
The Newspaper Guild-CWA
OpenTheGovernment.org
Park Center for Independent Media
Participatory Politics Foundation
PEN American Center
Personal Democracy Media
Project Censored
Project On Government Oversight
Prometheus Radio Project
Public Record Media
RootsAction.org
Society of Professional Journalists
Sunlight Foundation
Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University
United Republic
Utah Foundation for Open Government
Washington Civil Rights Council
Women In Media & News
Women, Action & the Media
Women’s Media Center
WRFN, Radio Free Nashville
Writers Guild of America, East 5-24-13

[vector7]

Eric Holder complicit in:

• Ruby Ridge
  
• Waco
• Oklahoma City
  
• The Black Panther voter intimidation (his people)
• Sues Arizona over Immigration Law while they get hauled in before the UN for human rights violations
• Fast and Furious
• The IRS investigating the Presidents enemies list
• Going after the free press (FOX News)

Clinton and Obama are behind this mans activity.

The article Newsweek gutted--more proof of FBI corruption

• unedited original Newsweek article
• November 25, 2011
• By: Anthony Martin

After 15 years, the scars from the Oklahoma City bombing still run deep.
Credits: (Photo by Brett Deering/Getty Images)

When citizen investigative journalist Mike Vanderboegh reported earlier this week that an article that appeared in Newsweek Magazine this week was supposed to contain explosive information damaging to the current Administration and that of Bill Clinton, he had a good idea of what was cut by editor Tina Brown due to his numerous contacts in the government. Today, however, Vanderboegh has an unedited copy of the original version of the article, complete with credible evidence of corruption that exposes Eric Holder, Janet Reno, the FBI, and two Administrations as threats not only to the truth but to the very lives of American citizens.

Related topics

• PATCON
• FBI corruption
• DOJ corruption
• Obama Administration corruption
• Oklahoma City bombing

The original article written by reporter R.M. Schneiderman and approved by his immediate editor John Solomon is extensive. An abbreviated step-by-step overview of that article is provided below.

1. Schneiderman uncovered revelations concerning the Oklahoma City bombing that not only implicate Clinton Administration officials in mass murder but contain a direct link to the Obama Administration, the current FBI, and Attorney-General Eric Holder, who worked for Janet Reno at the Department of Justice during the 1990s. Two informants, John Matthews and Jesse Trentadue, provided the FBI and DOJ with information showing that Timothy McVeigh had worked in tandem with other persons, thereby blowing the theory of the 'lone bomber.'

2. Matthews, who was working with the government to infiltrate extremist groups, had provided information to the FBI indicating that one Tom Posey, who had been a suspect in another crime called the Brown's Ferry Plot, had collaborated with Timothy McVeigh. It was Posey who was the first to talk about the use of weapons of mass destruction to blow up federal buildings--a prospect that prompted Matthews to go to the FBI. But there is evidence that Posey was cooperating with the FBI, providing them key information about various extremist groups in the U.S.

3. Matthews had also encountered Timothy McVeigh in Texas, in the company of one Andreas Carl Strassmeier, another suspect in the planning of the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh and Strassmeier were both involved in the para-military movement and were participating in training exercises in Texas.

4. Neither Posey nor Strassmeier were ever pursued by the FBI for their role in the bombing, leading Matthews to conclude that the entire case of the FBI against McVeigh as the 'lone bomber' was highly suspect.

5. A racist, neo-Nazi group in Texas called the Texas Light Infantry is key to understanding the plot to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. It was within this very group that Matthews encountered McVeigh and Strassmeier. Yet the article in Newsweek fails to mention the militia group at all. Instead the article identifies the Texas Reserve Militia. This deft sleight of hand appears to be aimed at hiding the truth about the Texas Light Infantry, where McVeigh and Strassmeier laid out their plot.

6. Another FBI informant by the name of Dave Rossi was key to the plot, yet that information was also cut out of the final copy of the article that appeared in Newsweek. Rossi knew Posey very well from numerous encounters at various and sundry meetings of extremist militia groups. Rossi was also a key operative in the FBI's scandalous and murderous covert program called PATCON--'Patriot Conspiracy'--which was involved in all of the major scandals going back decades, including the massacres at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

7. Newsweek editor Tina Brown also cut out from the final article an entire section that the reporter had included on Utah Attorney Jesse Trentadue, whose brother was beaten to death in prison shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. Trentadue believes that his brother was killed by the FBI in a case of mistaken identity. The official report claims that Trentadue hanged himself in the cell. But photos indicate that his throat had been cut. There were bruises all over his body. A federal judge later ruled the FBI had lied in court about the case and destroyed evidence. The Trentadue family was awarded 1.1 million dollars in damages for emotional distress.

Thus, the key facts in the original article written by R.M. Schneiderman for Newsweek/The Daily Beast/The Washington Post wound up in the waste basket of editor Tina Brown. Why? Informants say the FBI, the DOJ, and the Obama Administration pressured the organization to withhold the information.

And, with the ongoing scandal involving Project Gunwalker--Operation Fast and Furious--the Administration may be interesting in protecting key figures in high places, particularly given that many of those involved in Gunwalker were also part of the scandal surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing.

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.

Here's a run down on the Clinton scandals which have many of the same operatives in the Obama Administration.

Why the Clinton Scandals Were a Bigger Deal Than the Obama Ones

Or, how to tell a personal scandal from a policy controversy

Garance Franke-Ruta May 28 2013, 7:15 PM ET

Reuters

President Obama visited the Jersey Shore Tuesday, where Gov. Chris Christie presented him with a stuffed bear at an arcade and the two declared the shore open for business after seven months of post-Hurricane Sandy repairs. It played as a nice respite for the president after a couple of weeks of getting hammered in Washington by Republicans and members of the press. But the reality is that no matter how fierce the arguments in Washington about the triad of administration scandals, none of them reach even the level of the Clinton scandals of the 1990s, let alone some of the other stuff they are being compared to.

The main difference is this: In contrast to the highly personal nature of the Clinton scandals, none of the so-called Obama scandals involve direct actions by the president or his wife, let alone their romantic or financial dealings before or during their time in office. Instead, the controversies swirling around the administration all involve the conduct of individuals within the federal government overseen by Obama as the head of the executive branch.

Further, while President Clinton's second term was dominated by scandal stories, it's important to recall that the Clinton scandals actually reached such a pitch early in his first term that less than a year after taking office, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske Jr. to look into the Whitewater brouhaha. By August 1994, Fiske had been replaced by former George H.W. Bush Solicitor General Ken Starr, who would go on to conduct such an elaborate array of investigations for the next five years that it flummoxed Washington and ensnared a broad array of Clinton's Arkansas associates before finally, more than three years in, unearthing Monica Lewinsky and prompting congressional impeachment proceedings.

Indeed, before the general election of 1996, which saw Clinton triumph over Republican opponent Bob Dole, at least three trials had been held stemming from Starr's Whitewater investigations -- trials and investigations that involved sworn testimony by both the president and the first lady. Long before the Lewinsky scandal erupted into public view, Clinton friends and former business partners James and Susan McDouglas, along with Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, were convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges related to a failed savings and loan association the McDougals ran after the failure of the 1978 Whitewater development land deal they'd worked on with the Clintons. Webster Hubbell -- at one time Clinton's White House liason to the Justice Department and later associate attorney general -- also spent years entangled in legal proceedings over his billing practices at the Rose Law Firm where Hillary Clinton also had worked, as well as his taxes. In 1994 he was convicted of fraud, and in 1999 entered into a plea deal that eventually led to jail time, thanks to the Starr-office prosecutions.

Also worth remembering: All of this was not enough to bring the president down, and Clinton was in 1999 acquitted of high crimes and misdemeanors in the Lewinsky investigation. The Senate couldn't even get enough support to pass a censure bill.
Here's how the Washington Post, which owned the Clinton scandal stories in a way hard to imagine now, described the array of pre-Lewinsky administration controversies in its 2000 Whitewater special report:

• A fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan to Susan McDougal, some of which went into Whitewater Development Corp. David Hale, a former Little Rock judge whose company issued the loan, told investigators that Bill Clinton pressured him to do so.
• The mysterious disappearance and rediscovery of billing records showing the extent of Hillary Clinton's legal work for McDougal's savings and loan. Missing and under subpoena for two years, they turned up in January 1996 in the Clintons' private quarters at the White House.
• The firing of seven members of the White House travel office in 1993, possibly to make room for Clinton friends -- followed by an FBI investigation of the office, allegedly opened under pressure from the White House to justify the firings. Sometimes called "Travelgate."
• The 1993 suicide of White House counsel Vincent Foster, hard on the heels of the travel-office imbroglio and his filing of delinquent Whitewater Corp. tax returns.
• The collection of hundreds of confidential FBI files on prominent Republicans by a minor White House operative in 1993 and 1994. Sometimes called "Filegate."
• The more than $700,000 paid to former associate attorney general Webster L. Hubbell, most of it from friends of President Clinton and Democratic Party supporters, just as the former law partner of Hillary Clinton was coming under intense scrutiny by Whitewater investigators.

Additionally there were scandals over: overnight stays in the White House Lincoln Bedroom by campaign donors, illegal campaign donations (as from John Huang and Indonesian banker James Riady), and, most memorably, the sex and perjury scandal involving Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

All of these scandals had a unifying theme: They either started in the White House or involved close personal associates or campaign donors of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

A contemporary equivalent of the Clinton scandals would be if, say, the Obama Justice Department had in 2010 appointed a special prosecutor to look into the president's pre-White House dealings with Tony Rezko -- a former Obama fundraiser convicted on corruption and extortion charges in 2011 -- or the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

But how crazy would today's Republican House have looked if it had started holding hearings on Rezko or Wright in January 2011? Obama's personal dealings were all litigated during the campaigns, and America, with two major wars then still in progress and an economy barely out of its free fall, would have had no appetite early in the president's first term for an expansive, open-ended investigation into the one-time personal associates of their historic and popular new leader.

Instead Obama has a second-term controversy over Benghazi -- which is to say, a policy controversy about how to keep American diplomatic personnel safe in dangerous countries with weak states when they venture outside embassy walls -- as well as the recent one-week controversy over the interagency editing of early talking points on the attack. He's got a controversy over the Department of Justice's investigations into leakers, whistleblowers, and reporters that extends up to the level of the attorney general. And he's got a real policy and bureaucratic management problem on his hands in the form of the IRS's decision to target Tea Party-type groups applying for tax-exempt status for special screening.

These controversies are not just different from the Clinton scandals in degree, they are different in kind. They are managerial controversies involving ground-level conduct of government business by bureaucrats little-known outside their agencies (who'd ever heard of Lois Lerner a month ago?). And that's how they are being handled -- through policy guidance, policy reviews, and the resignation of personnel at the State Department and the IRS who oversaw the troubled divisions responsible for the high-visibility agency failures. There will likely be more resignations at the IRS, and there will certainly be more congressional hearings. But these hearings will be useful, because they are about the proper functioning of an agency that touches every American. And that, perhaps, is the greatest difference between the Clinton scandals and the Obama Administration controversies. Because the latter are policy and management controversies, rather than personal values scandals, some lasting good may yet come of them.

[American Patriot]

Oh REALLY???????

Brad Woodhouse: Journalists forfeit ‘right to gripe’ if they refuse off-the-record meeting with Holder

Posted at 5:55 pm on May 29, 2013 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

Tweet 378

Holder's request for an off-the-record meeting with DC media bureau chiefs is dumb. If it were my call, I would decline the offer.
—
Brian Wilson (@BrianWilsonDC) May 29, 2013

The most transparent administration ever didn’t do itself any favors at the peak of the Benghazi scandal by hand-selecting a number of journalists for a “deep background” meeting with Press Secretary Jay Carney. Now, with Attorney General Eric Holder allegedly investigating himself for seizing the phone records of AP reporters and the private emails of Fox News’ James Rosen, some Washington, D.C., news bureau chiefs are being summoned to an off-the-record briefing.


The New York Times has reportedly sent its regrets, not wishing to further encourage the administration’s behind-closed-doors brand of transparency.

Jill Abramson says NY Times "will not be attending the session at DOJ," citing off the record ground rules.—
Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) May 29, 2013

Jill Abramson: "It isn’t appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general."—
Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) May 29, 2013

DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse thinks it’s the Times’ loss if it refuses this generous offer.

POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.—
Brad Woodhouse (@woodhouseb) May 29, 2013

Well, @woodhouseb took things in an interesting direction just now.—
Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) May 29, 2013

Oh yes, yes he did.

@woodhouseb Wait, the very people the AG bugged and followed and whose privacy was invaded refuse to meet w/ him? #Shocked—
Bob Hicks (@BobHicks_) May 29, 2013

.@woodhouseb Refuse to meet with him on an OFF THE RECORD basis on topic about DOJ prosecuting leakers — and subpoenaing journalists!—
Robert A George (@RobGeorge) May 29, 2013

@woodhouseb public officials shouldn't request off the record meetins with reporters—
Justin McLachlan (@justinmclachlan) May 29, 2013

I. Love. This. ow.ly/lwqKr if refuse to meet my mugger, does that mean I can't "gripe" about the mugging?—
Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) May 29, 2013

@woodhouseb Is this part of the "most transparent administration ever"?? Off record convos w/ journos after a massive intrusion?—
Frunkis (@navyvetpc6) May 29, 2013

@woodhouseb Reporters who don't meet with AG lose rights to not have their personal shit rummaged through like a 3rd world country #Idiot—
S.M (@redsteeze) May 29, 2013

@woodhouseb So you forfeit your right to complain about the AG spying on you if you refuse to meet with him secretly? That's America now?—
Sunny (@sunnyright) May 29, 2013

I'd like @woodhouseb to send me all his private emails at once. Then he must come meet with me, otherwise I shall scold him—
Matthew H. (@Matthops82) May 29, 2013

Unique view of 1st amendment

RT @JohnEkdahl:
Not attending off-the-record mtg w Holder “forfeits right to gripe”, according to @woodhouseb—
johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) May 29, 2013

"Off the record" is the new "transparency" according to @woodhouseb—
(@bradcundiff) May 29, 2013

@JohnEkdahl I guess this Charm Offensive is a compulsory affair. @woodhouseb—
J Kane (@J_Kane) May 29, 2013

@JohnEkdahl Where "right to gripe" = "freedom of the press", apparently. @woodhouseb—
Chris Barnhart (@ChrisBarnhart) May 29, 2013

New definition of democracy from @woodhouseb: If you don't attend off-the-record briefings from Holder/Carney you can't question them- ever.—
(@NumbersMuncher) May 29, 2013

.@woodhouseb 1) In America, the media's right to question those in power is never forfeit or subject to your conditions.—
AG (@AG_Conservative) May 29, 2013

.@woodhouseb 2) not only does Holder investigate himself, but then he gets to selectively feed the media his side off-the-record? No Thanks.—
AG (@AG_Conservative) May 29, 2013

@woodhouseb The First Amendment isn't really that hard of concept.—
(@Mallamutt) May 29, 2013

Oh @woodhouseb bless your heart.—
Heather (@hboulware) May 29, 2013

@woodhouseb Jesus, Brad.—
Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) May 29, 2013

I wish you guys would give @woodhouseb a break. A-He's obviously not very bright and B- Defending most corrupt admin in decades ain't easy—
DrewM (@DrewMTips) May 29, 2013

[vector7]

Armed agents seize records of reporter, Washington Times prepares legal action

Comments (1903)


** FILE ** Associated Press By Guy Taylor
-
The Washington Times
Friday, October 25, 2013

• Enlarge Photo
  The Washington Times more >

Photo Gallery:

• 
  
  8 PhotosFamilies suspect SEAL Team 6 crash was inside job

Related Stories

• Judicial Watch sues IRS for stonewalling on tea party FOIA

Maryland state police and federal agents used a search warrant in an unrelated criminal investigation to seize the private reporting files of an award-winning former investigative journalist for The Washington Times who had exposed problems in the Homeland Security Department's Federal Air Marshal Service.

Reporter Audrey Hudson said the investigators, who included an agent for Homeland's Coast Guard service, took her private notes and government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act during a predawn raid of her family home on Aug. 6.

The documents, some which chronicled her sources and her work at the Times about problems inside the Homeland Security Department, were seized under a warrant to search for unregistered firearms and a “potato gun” suspected of belonging to her husband, Paul Flanagan, a Coast Guard employee. Mr. Flanagan has not been charged with any wrongdoing since the raid.

The warrant, obtained by the Times, offered no specific permission to seize reporting notes or files.

The Washington Times said Friday it is preparing legal action to fight what it called an unwarranted intrusion on the First Amendment.

“While we appreciate law enforcement’s right to investigate legitimate concerns, there is no reason for agents to use an unrelated gun case to seize the First Amendment protected materials of a reporter,” Times Editor John Solomon said. “This violates the very premise of a free press, and it raises additional concerns when one of the seizing agencies was a frequent target of the reporter’s work.

“Homeland’s conduct in seizing privileged reporters notes and Freedom of Information Act documents raises serious Fourth Amendment issues, and our lawyers are preparing an appropriate legal response,” he said.

Maryland State Police declined comment, except to say that “evidence and information developed during this investigation is currently under review by both the Anne Arundel County State's Attorney's Office and the United State's Attorney's Office,” and that a determination has yet to be made on any charges.

The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed it seized and reviewed Ms. Hudson’s documents but insisted it did nothing wrong.

Capt. Tony Hahn, a spokesman at Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, said the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) was involved in the case because Mrs. Hudson’s husband, Mr. Flanagan, is a Coast Guard employee.

During the search of the home, said Capt. Hahn, “the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled ‘FOUO’ — For Official Use Only and ‘LES’ — Law Enforcement Sensitive.”

“The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises,” he said. “The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act.”

Ms. Hudson described a harrowing ordeal the morning her family home was raided.

The agents, who had arrived a 4:30 a.m. in full body armor, collected several small arms during the raid, although no charges have been filed against Mr. Flanagan, 54, during the nearly three months since.

Mrs. Hudson, 50, says that while the authorities were raiding her house, Coast Guard investigator Miguel Bosch — who formerly worked at the marshal service — began asking questions about whether she was the same “Audrey Hudson” who had written “the air marshal stories” for The Washington Times. Mrs. Hudson says she responded that she was.

It was not until roughly a month later, Mrs. Hudson says, that she was notified that the agents had quietly seized five files from her private office — including handwritten and typed notes from interviews with numerous confidential sources related to her exclusive reporting on the air marshals service.
The search warrant for the raid, issued to Maryland State Trooper Victor Hodgin by a district court judge, made no reference to the documents. A copy obtained by The Times indicates that the search was to be narrowly focused on the pursuit of “firearms” and their “accessories and/or parts,” as well as any communications that that might be found in Mrs. Hudson and Mrs. Flanagan’s home related to “the acquisition of firearms or accessories.”

David W. Fischer, a private attorney contacted by the couple, says that the raid is a potential violation of Mrs. Hudson’s constitutional rights.

“Obviously, the warrant is about a gun, nothing about reporters notes,” he said. “It would be a blatant constitutional violation to take that stuff if the search warrant didn’t specifically say so.”

“This is a situation where they picked very specifically through her stuff and took documents that the Coast Guard, or the Department of Homeland Security, would be very interested in,” he added.

The raid could constitute illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment — and the fact that the materials were related to her work as a reporter could First Amendment freedom of the press protections.

Once the documents had been “cleared,” Homeland decided to return the documents to Mr. Flanagan and Mrs. Hudson, Capt. Hahn said.
The Coast Guard, like the Federal Air Marshal Service is an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

A Reporter’s Word

What concerns Mrs. Hudson and The Times is the fact that private reporting documents were seized during the search being conducted on totally unrelated grounds.

While Mr. Flanagan has a police record from the mid-1980s related to the unlawful possession of firearms, including automatic weapons, Mrs. Hudson fears her private documents may have been the real target of the search.

“They tore my office apart more than any other room in my house,” she said, adding agents did not take other potentially non-TSA-related documents from the office.

“I had a box full of [Department of Defense] notes,” she said. “They didn’t touch those.”

Some of the files included notes that she had used to expose how the Federal Air Marshal Service had lied to Congress during the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks about the number of airline flights that the service was actually protecting against another terrorist attack.

A story written by Mrs. Hudson for The Times in March 2005, revealed how air marshals were protecting less than 10 percent of domestic and international flights during the month of December 2004, and that the number of flights Homeland Security officials were providing to Congress was higher than the actual number of marshals it employed.

Mrs. Hudson says that the experience of having “a half-dozen armed officers rifle through my personal belongings for the three-hour search was traumatizing.”

“But when the files were returned to me and I saw all the notes that had been in their possession for a month, it was gut-wrenching,” she said.

That her private files were seized, says Mrs. Hudson, is particularly disturbing because of interactions that she and her husband had during the search of their home, as well as months afterwards, with Coast Guard investigator Miguel Bosch. According to his profile on the networking site LinkedIn, Mr. Bosch worked at the Federal Air Marshal Service from April 2001 through November 2007.

It was Mr. Bosch, Mrs. Hudson says, who asked her during the Aug. 6 search if she was the same Audrey Hudson who had written the air marshal stories. It was also Mr. Bosch, she says, who phoned Mr. Flanagan a month later to say that documents taken during the search had been cleared.

During the call, according Mrs. Hudson, Mr. Bosch said the files had been taken to make sure that they contained only “FOIA-able” information and that he had circulated them to the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service, in order to verify that “it was legitimate” for her to possess such information.

“Essentially, the files that included the identities of numerous government whistleblowers were turned over to the same government agency and officials who they were exposing for wrongdoing,” Mrs. Hudson said.

Reached on the telephone by a reporter for The Times, Mr. Bosch refused to comment on whether or not journalist-related documents were seized during the search of Mrs. Hudson’s home.

“I got to get on the phone with Coast Guard legal before I talk with you,” Mr. Bosch said. “It’s still an open investigation.”

Asked specifically whether documents related to Mrs. Hudson’s reporting activities were taken during the search, he responded: “There was a lot of stuff taken.”

Legitimate Case?

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains that it has done nothing wrong in the case and that the investigation into Mrs. Hudson’s husband is based on legitimate suspicion that he was illegally in possession of firearms.

The warrant outlines how Mr. Flanagan was found guilty in 1985 — when he was 25 — of resisting arrest in Prince George’s County, Maryland. A concealed weapons charge in the same incident related to an AR-15 semiautomatic weapon was dropped.

It also alludes to a no-contest plea to charges related to a tax on weapons manufacture, a conviction the justice of which Mr. Flanagan disputes on the basis of mishandled evidence and unclear advice from federal gun regulators.

In the warrant, authorities also noted that Mr. Flanagan was arrested in 1996 by police in Anne Arundel County for possessing a handgun in his vehicle, a charge that later was dismissed.

The warrant outlines how sometime this year Mr. Flanagan drew the interest of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after allegedly attempting to purchase “possible machine gun parts from a Swedish national.”

The warrant says the information was handed to the Coast Guard's investigative service — since Mr. Flanagan worked at the agency — which conducted an interview during which “Flanagan was evasive but stated he did receive a ‘potato gun’ but it was defective and it was thrown away.”

The term “potato gun” is “slang used during the illegal importation of silencers,” according to the warrant.

Mrs. Hudson says the “potato gun” claim is outrageous.

She says that her husband did in fact purchase a “potato launcher” from an online company based in Sweden five years ago as a novelty item, but it was discarded within as few weeks because it did not work.

She noted that the law enforcement agents who raided her home did not take a “golf ball launcher” that also belonged to her husband as a novelty item. They did, however, confiscate small arms belonging to Mrs. Hudson that she had legally registered with the Maryland State Police as far back as 2005.

The search warrant allowed for the weapons to be confiscated, and Mrs. Hudson says the agents told her that because her husband had pled guilty to a resisting arrest charge nearly 30 years ago, she was not allowed to possess the guns under state law. The guns she owned were for recreational shooting, she says, as well as for security concerns resulting from many of her investigations.

“I swear to God, we’re not smuggling machine gun parts from Sweden,” said Mrs. Hudson, adding that the potato launcher in question “didn’t even work.”

Mrs. Hudson has been a reporter in Washington, D.C. for nearly 15 years, and covered Homeland Security for the Times after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks through December 2009.

Her investigations have sparked numerous congressional investigations that led to laws signed by former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. She has won numerous journalism awards for her investigations, including the prestigious Sigma Delta Chi bronze medal for public service, the Society of Professional Journalists Dateline Award in Investigative Reporting, and was nominated twice by The Times for the Pulitzer Prize.

“Protecting confidential sources is a part of my honor and hits me at my ethical core,” said Mrs. Hudson. “To have someone steal my source information and know it could impact people’s careers, is disgusting, a massive overreach. This kind of conduct is intimidation clearly aimed at silencing a vigorous press.”

[vector7]

USA Today Memo: No More White House Press Office Photos.


AP
by Noah Rothman

Last week, 38 news outlets sent a letter to the White House protesting their shutting out of independent photojournalists out in favor of taxpayer-funded official White House photographers.

Over the weekend, the Tacoma-based The News Tribune declared that it will refuse to use White House official photography in the future. According to a memo obtained by Poynter, they are joined by USA Today, which has instituted a new directive prohibiting the use of official White House photos except in “extraordinary circumstances.”

In a memo addressed to staff and circulated on Sunday, Andrew Scott, USA Today’s Deputy Director of Multimedia, wrote that the paper will not use “handout photos originating from the White House Press Office” outside of “extraordinary circumstances”.

[vector7]

WH Pollster To Media: Stop Reporting Polls

January 4, 2014 by B. Christopher Agee Leave a Comment



When the approval rate of a Republican (i.e. George W. Bush) flounders, leftists are generally eager to accept polling results as a concrete reflection of public sentiment. On the other hand, at least one prominent administration pollster wants to conceal Barack Obama’s increasingly depressed popularity.

Joel Benenson, who has served as Obama’s lead pollster since 2008, told reporters that they should not report on public opinion polls in the coming year.

When prompted to provide a New Year’s resolution, he responded, “Go one year without reporting any public polling data.”

For someone who made a career out of doing exactly that, such a proclamation was obviously precipitated by a major event. Apparently, that shift was caused by Obama’s freefalling public approval.

With most sources showing a drop of about 10 points over the past year, the persistent drop is unquestionably newsworthy. To Benenson, however, polling results are misleading.

Tellingly, there were no similar admonitions when Obama’s approval rate was well north of 50 percent.

Offering an explanation for his advice, Benenson said that many polls are “reported on strictly a topline, horserace-type perspective that does nothing, or at best very little, to illuminate the news of the day.”

He further elaborated, noting that if his original suggestion was “too strict,” the media might report only polls that contain “in-depth analysis of the underlying dynamics that are truly shaping the data.”

Of course, such peripheral information is rarely needed to gauge the direction of public opinion.

If that news happens to be a rampant mistrust of the president, a poll supporting that evidence is quite helpful.

Committed ideologues, though, will put their agenda above reason every time.

As the midterm elections of 2014 approach, continually sagging polling results will negatively affect Democrat candidacies across the U.S. While such collateral damage is expected and, in many cases, deserved, Benenson’s proposition would shelter these leftist hopefuls.

Polls have long been an integral part of campaigns. When the results are unfavorable, however, ideologues like Benenson will do whatever it takes to protect their allies.

[vector7]

More of Obama’s Thug Tactics

Jan 21st, 2014

by Don.

Greta Van Susteren, a cable television personality since 1991, has spent her 14 year TV career building her reputation as a hard hitting, unbiased arbiter of the truth. She started working for CNN in 1991 as a legal analyst. She came into prominence during the OJ Simpson trial and after 11 years at CNN, she went to FOX News.

Greta is known for asking hard questions, but being respectful in the process. She garners respect from not only her colleagues, but also the folks that she has interviewed.

That is why it’s no surprise that Van Susteren is pulling no punches and reporting the latest attempt by the Obama administration to exert influence over and control the news. She says that someone within the Obama administration, someone that she knows personally, told her to tell Fox reporter, Jennifer Griffin to back off and stop investigating and reporting on the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.

I remembered a disturbing phone call from a good friend in the Obama Administration. I have known this friend for years. The call was a short time after 9/11 (maybe Oct. 2012?) In the call, my friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first. Here is what I know: Jennifer is a class act…experienced…and a very responsible journalist. One of the absolute best in the business – no axe to grind, she just wants the facts.

I told my friend before I go to Jennifer telling her she is wrong, I need proof she is wrong, strong proof and you need to be specific – what are you saying she is getting wrong? We went around and around — including the statement again that this was just a call as a favor to Jennifer and me to save Jennifer’s career from reporting incorrect information. I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

On her website, Gretawire, she posted that in the days following the attack, Fox was left out of the conference call hosted by the State Department press. Fox received no invitation to that call, while all other major news outlets were included. But it got worse, for a later briefing by the CIA followed the same MO by excluding Fox News.

“Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was [an] accident and not intentional,” Van Susteren writes.

And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

It turns out Fox News wasn’t alone in being the subject of the Obama administration’s bullying tactics. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson scared the administration so bad that not only was her very own network taking a dim view of her reporting, but she began to get stonewalled, having trouble getting her Benghazi stories on the air. But the veteran reporter persisted, even after her computer got hacked. CBS confirmed this, but stopped short of placing blame. Atkisson said:

I find [that] improper,” she said. “You could say suspicious.” Suspicious? “We don’t know what we don’t know,” she says. “There could be political reasons or valid national security reasons [for not replying]. I just don’t know. I know they haven’t made a good argument” for why public disclosure of the material would harm national security.

Breitbart would later report that the survivors, which were debriefed by the State Department immediately following the attacks have been kept out of the public eye, and that they in all likelihood they were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements.

It was reported that Nixon had an enemies’ list and he used similar thug tactics to control the message. The only difference being that the MSM was outraged by it and publicly took him to task. Today’s MSM and some of the cable news outlets may be just as outraged, but you’d never know it by listening to the evening news.


Greta Van Susteren recounts administration’s shocking attempt to persuade her to kill Benghazi coverage

January 20, 2014 by Janeen Capizola 341 Comments


Greta Van Susteren via Forbes/Jennifer Griffin Fox News

Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren shared a very personal and very disturbing story about the extent to which the Obama administration attempted to shut down Fox News Channel from reporting on the terror attack in Benghazi.

On Thursday, the day after the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi was released, Van Susteren took to her blog, “Gretawire,” and said the Obama administration “has some explaining to do.”

She took readers for a “little walk in history” to remind of how Fox News Channel was the only network “shut out” of a State Department conference call specifically set up to answer “questions about Benghazi for the media” in the days after the attack in September 2012 and she reminded of “the CIA briefing about Benghazi at the CIA for all the networks – except one: Fox News Channel. The CIA would not let Fox News Channel attend.”

But, as she wrote next, it was the phone call she received from a “good friend in the Obama administration,” that was most shocking and the most “low.”

This “friend” attempted to have Van Susteren stop Fox News’ national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin from reporting on Benghazi.
Van Susteren held nothing back but the “friend’s” name, as she wrote, in part:

And then as I was sitting at my desk thinking about the reporting since September 2012, I thought about the weirdest of all and the worst of all for me personally! I remembered a disturbing phone call from a good friend in the Obama Administration. I have known this friend for years. The call was a short time after 9/11 (maybe Oct. 2012?) In the call, my friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first. Here is what I know: Jennifer is a class act….experienced..and a very responsible journalist. One of the absolute best in the business – no axe to grind, she just wants the facts.

I told my friend before I go to Jennifer telling her she is wrong, I need proof she is wrong, strong proof and you need to be specific - what are you saying she is getting wrong? We went around and around — including the statement again that this was just a call as a favor to Jennifer and me to save Jennifer’s career from reporting incorrect information. I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly.

My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

H/T: Breitbart News

[American Patriot]

Wow.....

Assholes.

Greta needs to name names now.

[vector7]

FCC official, others warn agency study could stifle freedom of the press

Published February 20, 2014FoxNews.com

Facebook1596 Twitter408 Gplus56



An Obama administration plan that would get researchers into newsrooms across the country is sparking concern among congressional Republicans and conservative groups.

The purpose of the proposed Federal Communications Commission study is to “identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations,” according to the agency.

However, one agency commissioner, Ajit Pai, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday that the May 2013 proposal would allow researchers to “grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”

He also said he feared the study might stifle the freedom of the press.

“The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch,” wrote Pai, appointed to the FCC’s five-member commission in May 2012 by President Obama. “But everyone should agree on this:

The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

The agency declined to comment. But watchdog groups immediately responded to Pai’s concerns.

“The FCC seems unable to keep its hands off the news media for any extended period of time,” Jeffrey Eisenach, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told FoxNews.com.

“It’s the same generic concern of needing a news nanny to make sure we’re all well informed,” he added. “The same people who are concerned about the NSA spying on Americans ought to be concerned about this.”

The research will include questions about the process by which stories are selected and on how often stations cover “critical information needs" and will be posed through voluntary surveys.
However, Pai remains wary.

“Participation is voluntary—in theory,” he wrote. But “the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license.”

Several months ago, the GOP-led House Committee on Energy and Commerce said the proposed field study showed “startling disregard” for the news media’s freedom and urged agency Commissioner Tom Wheeler to suspend the effort.

“Given the widespread calls for the commission to respect the First Amendment and stay out of the editorial decisions of reporters and broadcasters, we were shocked to see that the FCC is putting itself back in the business of attempting to control the political speech of journalists,” committee leaders wrote in their December 2013 letter. “It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this.”

Pai and Eisenach also argued the proposal could lead to the revival of the agency’s 1949 Fairness Doctrine, which resulted in lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s.

The agency stopped enforcing the policy in the late 1980s, and then-FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski eliminated it in August 2011.

The new project also will include newspaper and Internet content and is expected to start this spring with a field test in Columbia, S.C.

“This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

[Avvakum]

“This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”


N0 government likes to be criticized, because that represents a zone of freedom outside their control. It may not matter that a person exercising their free speech is wrong; most will be. It matters that one has a right given by God to exercise their free will, to their own glory or their own damnation. Government is Force, implicit or explicit violence, and cannot allow that right and will always seek to end the rights of free speech. The Founding Fathers of the United States knew that and HOPED they could place Government within certain bounds, but in my opinion this is impossible. It's like asking for wet fire or honest liars.

[vector7]

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs

By Paul Bedard | MAY 7, 2014 AT 8:49 AM

FEC Chairman Worried Conservative Sites Are Targeted By The...

Lee Goodman, the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, recently stated in an interview, “I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial...




Topics: Washington Secrets Supreme Court FEC Media Conservatism Elections Citizens United Endorsements Drudge Report John Paul Stevens

Sean Hannity's radio show came under fire by Democratic election officials for raising political...

Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media's exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.

“I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers,” warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an interview.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

Noting the success of sites like the Drudge Report, Goodman said that protecting conservative media, especially those on the internet, “matters to me because I see the future going to the democratization of media largely through the internet. They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm clouds that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.”

All media has long benefited from an exemption from FEC rules, thereby allowing outlets to pick favorites in elections and promote them without any limits or disclosure requirements like political action committees.

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission's "fairness doctrine" to cut of conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

“The picking and choosing has started to occur,” said Goodman. “There are some in this building that think we can actually regulate” media, added Goodman, a Republican whose chairmanship lasts through December. And if that occurs, he said, “then I am concerned about disparate treatment of conservative media.”

He added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

[American Patriot]

Start regulating Hannity and I'll start a pirate radio station and you can bet your ass I'll do it.