Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AP calls government's record seizure a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion'
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
May 16, 2013, 10:27:32 PM5/16/13
to
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/13/18234317-ap-calls-
governments-record-seizure-a-massive-and-unprecedented-intrusion?lite
The Associated Press has revealed that it's been notified by the Justice
Department that investigators obtained records on more than 20 phone lines
used by AP reporters and editors last April and May. NBC's Pete Williams
reports.
By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department used a secret subpoena to obtain two
months of phone records for Associated Press reporters and editors without
notifying the news organization, a senior department official tells NBC
News, saying the step was necessary to avoid "a substantial threat to the
integrity" of an ongoing leak investigation.
The seizure of the phone records, disclosed earlier Monday by AP President
and CEO Gary Pruitt, is the latest move in a series of high profile and
controversial investigations of leaks of classified information by the
Justice Department. In a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric
Holder, Pruitt said obtaining more than two months of AP phone records on
20 separate telephone lines without prior notice was a "massive and
unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.
It also drew a swift rebuke Monday from members of Congress and freedom of
the press watchdogs, one of whom called the move "Nixonian."
Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., revealed in
a letter to the AP on Friday that federal prosecutors obtained the
records. The letter did not give a reason for obtaining the records, but
Machen is conducting an investigation into the leak of classified
information about a foiled terror plot in Yemen last year.
An AP story last spring reported details of a CIA operation in Yemen that
stopped an al Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the
United States.
In his letter to Holder, Pruitt said the seized phone records were from
early 2012 and included phone lines for AP bureaus in New York, Washington
DC, Hartford, Connecticut and the AP line at the House of Representatives.
He said the records seized also included those from the home phones and
cell phones of individual journalists.
"We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious
interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the
news," Pruitt said.
Holder last June appointed Machen to conduct the investigation of the
Yemen terror plot leak and Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. attorney in Maryland,
to oversee a separate probe into the leak of U.S. government efforts to
use the Stuxnet computer virus to thwart the Iranian nuclear program.
In later Senate testimony, Holder said that he and FBI director Robert
Mueller had both been interviewed by FBI agents as part of the
investigations because they had prior knowledge of the information that
was leaked. (Under Justice regulations, any subpoena for news media phone
records requires the "express authorization" of the attorney general.
But a Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond Monday night when
asked whether the attorney general had recused himself in the
investigation.)
As another sign of the sensitivity of the case, CIA Director John Brennan
disclosed earlier this year that he also had been questioned by FBI agents
as part of the Yemen probe, but said he was later notified that he was not
a subject of the investigation.
Bill Miller, spokesman for Machen, said in an email that the subpoena for
the records was done by the book.
"Consistent with DOJ regulations, the department provided notification to
the Associated Press of the receipt of toll records in a letter dated May
10, 2013," He noted that Justice regulations "do not require notification
to the media prior to the issuance of legal process to obtain toll
records."
In a separate email, Miller wrote: "We take seriously our obligations to
follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice
policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations.
Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain
information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena
for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media
organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to
the integrity of the investigation.
"Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and
deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public
interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the
fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.”
The regulations cited by Miller state that subpoenas for the news media in
criminal cases should be done only when there are “reasonable grounds to
believe … that a crime has occurred” and that the records sought are
“essential to a successful investigation.”
They also state that subpoenas should, wherever possible, “be directed at
material information regarding a limited subject matter and “should cover
a reasonably limited period of time and … avoid requiring production of a
large volume of unpublished material.”
Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
prosecutions – six in five years – than any previous administration.
Those cases, which also have been sharply criticized by press groups, have
also targeted reporters’ phone records: James Risen, a national security
reporter for the New York Times, had his phone, credit card and bank
records subpoenaed as part of a Justice Department prosecution of a former
CIA officer accused of leaking classified information on Iran’s nuclear
program to him.
But critics say the extensive nature of the subpoena for the AP phone
records goes far beyond what was seen in earlier cases.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, vowed to investigate.
"This is obviously disturbing," he said. Coming in the wake of other
disclosures about the administration’s response to the attack on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the IRS’s targeting of conservative
nonprofit groups, he said it showed "top Obama administration officials
increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief
that they don't have to answer to anyone."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
said he wanted to know more about the justification for the secret
subpoena.
"The burden is always on the government when they go after private
information -- especially information regarding the press or its
confidential sources,” he said. “… I am concerned that the government may
not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want
to hear the government's explanation."
Anti-secrecy watchdogs also criticized the move.
"I've never heard of a dragnet collection effort against a media
organization like this," said Stephen Aftergood, who tracks secrecy issues
for the Federation of American Scientists. "This was not a targeted
monitoring of an individual reporter. It's a sweeping collection of an
entire bureau's communications."
"The Justice Department’s seizure of the Associated Press’ phone records
is Nixonian," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on
Government Oversight, a group that advocates on behalf of whistleblowers.
"The American public deserves a full accounting of why and how this could
happen."
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
governments-record-seizure-a-massive-and-unprecedented-intrusion?lite
The Associated Press has revealed that it's been notified by the Justice
Department that investigators obtained records on more than 20 phone lines
used by AP reporters and editors last April and May. NBC's Pete Williams
reports.
By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department used a secret subpoena to obtain two
months of phone records for Associated Press reporters and editors without
notifying the news organization, a senior department official tells NBC
News, saying the step was necessary to avoid "a substantial threat to the
integrity" of an ongoing leak investigation.
The seizure of the phone records, disclosed earlier Monday by AP President
and CEO Gary Pruitt, is the latest move in a series of high profile and
controversial investigations of leaks of classified information by the
Justice Department. In a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric
Holder, Pruitt said obtaining more than two months of AP phone records on
20 separate telephone lines without prior notice was a "massive and
unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.
It also drew a swift rebuke Monday from members of Congress and freedom of
the press watchdogs, one of whom called the move "Nixonian."
Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., revealed in
a letter to the AP on Friday that federal prosecutors obtained the
records. The letter did not give a reason for obtaining the records, but
Machen is conducting an investigation into the leak of classified
information about a foiled terror plot in Yemen last year.
An AP story last spring reported details of a CIA operation in Yemen that
stopped an al Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the
United States.
In his letter to Holder, Pruitt said the seized phone records were from
early 2012 and included phone lines for AP bureaus in New York, Washington
DC, Hartford, Connecticut and the AP line at the House of Representatives.
He said the records seized also included those from the home phones and
cell phones of individual journalists.
"We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious
interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the
news," Pruitt said.
Holder last June appointed Machen to conduct the investigation of the
Yemen terror plot leak and Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. attorney in Maryland,
to oversee a separate probe into the leak of U.S. government efforts to
use the Stuxnet computer virus to thwart the Iranian nuclear program.
In later Senate testimony, Holder said that he and FBI director Robert
Mueller had both been interviewed by FBI agents as part of the
investigations because they had prior knowledge of the information that
was leaked. (Under Justice regulations, any subpoena for news media phone
records requires the "express authorization" of the attorney general.
But a Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond Monday night when
asked whether the attorney general had recused himself in the
investigation.)
As another sign of the sensitivity of the case, CIA Director John Brennan
disclosed earlier this year that he also had been questioned by FBI agents
as part of the Yemen probe, but said he was later notified that he was not
a subject of the investigation.
Bill Miller, spokesman for Machen, said in an email that the subpoena for
the records was done by the book.
"Consistent with DOJ regulations, the department provided notification to
the Associated Press of the receipt of toll records in a letter dated May
10, 2013," He noted that Justice regulations "do not require notification
to the media prior to the issuance of legal process to obtain toll
records."
In a separate email, Miller wrote: "We take seriously our obligations to
follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice
policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations.
Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain
information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena
for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media
organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to
the integrity of the investigation.
"Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and
deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public
interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the
fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.”
The regulations cited by Miller state that subpoenas for the news media in
criminal cases should be done only when there are “reasonable grounds to
believe … that a crime has occurred” and that the records sought are
“essential to a successful investigation.”
They also state that subpoenas should, wherever possible, “be directed at
material information regarding a limited subject matter and “should cover
a reasonably limited period of time and … avoid requiring production of a
large volume of unpublished material.”
Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
prosecutions – six in five years – than any previous administration.
Those cases, which also have been sharply criticized by press groups, have
also targeted reporters’ phone records: James Risen, a national security
reporter for the New York Times, had his phone, credit card and bank
records subpoenaed as part of a Justice Department prosecution of a former
CIA officer accused of leaking classified information on Iran’s nuclear
program to him.
But critics say the extensive nature of the subpoena for the AP phone
records goes far beyond what was seen in earlier cases.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, vowed to investigate.
"This is obviously disturbing," he said. Coming in the wake of other
disclosures about the administration’s response to the attack on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the IRS’s targeting of conservative
nonprofit groups, he said it showed "top Obama administration officials
increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief
that they don't have to answer to anyone."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
said he wanted to know more about the justification for the secret
subpoena.
"The burden is always on the government when they go after private
information -- especially information regarding the press or its
confidential sources,” he said. “… I am concerned that the government may
not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want
to hear the government's explanation."
Anti-secrecy watchdogs also criticized the move.
"I've never heard of a dragnet collection effort against a media
organization like this," said Stephen Aftergood, who tracks secrecy issues
for the Federation of American Scientists. "This was not a targeted
monitoring of an individual reporter. It's a sweeping collection of an
entire bureau's communications."
"The Justice Department’s seizure of the Associated Press’ phone records
is Nixonian," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on
Government Oversight, a group that advocates on behalf of whistleblowers.
"The American public deserves a full accounting of why and how this could
happen."
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Peter Franks
May 17, 2013, 10:02:44 AM5/17/13
to
Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
received the information?
Shadow
May 17, 2013, 11:18:46 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:02:44 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>> prosecutions – six in five years – than any previous administration.
economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
"officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
wrote:
>On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>> prosecutions – six in five years – than any previous administration.
>So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>received the information?
I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
>Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>received the information?
economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
"officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Peter Franks
May 17, 2013, 11:35:08 AM5/17/13
to
WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
Bert
May 17, 2013, 4:27:00 PM5/17/13
to
In news:kshcp8ll6mq1e2n8d...@4ax.com Shadow <S...@dow.br>
wrote:
> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all.
Hey! That's funny!
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
wrote:
> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
BeamMeUpScotty
May 17, 2013, 7:02:44 PM5/17/13
to
> In news:kshcp8ll6mq1e2n8d...@4ax.com Shadow <S...@dow.br>
> wrote:
>
>> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
>> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all.
Jeff Strickland
May 18, 2013, 4:49:53 PM5/18/13
to
"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message
news:kshcp8ll6mq1e2n8d...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:02:44 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>
>>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>>> prosecutions � six in five years � than any previous administration.
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>
>>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>
>>So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>>Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>>received the information?
>
> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
> off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
> criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
> And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
> "officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
> private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
> []'s
> --
It appears to me that you are an apologist for the apeasers.
>>So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>>Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>>received the information?
>
> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
> off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
> criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
> And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
> "officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
> private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
> []'s
> --
Bush tapped international calls to specific regions of the world, 0bama
tapped all of the phones at what is perhaps the preeminent news organization
in the world. Bush was looking for people plotting attacks, 0bama is looking
for reporters that publish stories that do not tow the party line. There is
a huge difference in the taps that Bush did and the phone records that 0bama
collected. I am not suggesting that what Bush did is a good thing, but at
least his transgression was very narrow and focused on a particular set of
the population, 0bama has attacked the very core of the 1st Amendment.
FOR THE RECORD
Under 0bama, the phone taps that were done by Justice were not done
"officially" either. Just so you know. Holder recused himself from the
investigation, we must presume he did so because the investigation would
probably expose his activities -- illegal as they are -- but when he was
questioned last week, he said that he had no knowledge. He either has
knowledge and should recuse himself, or he has no knowledge and should head
the investigation. Both cannot be true. Just so you know.
Jeff Strickland
May 18, 2013, 10:25:35 PM5/18/13
to
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:kn5ig1$tpn$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/17/2013 8:18 AM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:02:44 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>
>>>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>>>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>>>> prosecutions � six in five years � than any previous administration.
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:02:44 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>
>>>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>>>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>>
>>> So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>>> Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>>> received the information?
>>
>> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
>> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
>> off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
>> criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
>> And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
>> "officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
>> private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
>
> ?! What article are you reading?! This has nothing to do with Bush.
>
> WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
>
They are going after the AP because a government stooge leaked information
>>> So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>>> Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>>> received the information?
>>
>> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
>> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
>> off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
>> criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
>> And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
>> "officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
>> private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
>
> ?! What article are you reading?! This has nothing to do with Bush.
>
> WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
>
to them.
Jeff Strickland
May 18, 2013, 10:26:11 PM5/18/13
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:iGylt.738$wn3...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
Shadow
May 18, 2013, 11:31:03 PM5/18/13
to
Peter Franks
May 19, 2013, 10:57:45 AM5/19/13
to
On 5/18/2013 7:25 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:kn5ig1$tpn$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/17/2013 8:18 AM, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:02:44 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>>>>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>>>>> prosecutions – six in five years – than any previous administration.
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:kn5ig1$tpn$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/17/2013 8:18 AM, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:02:44 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2013 7:27 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Since President Barack Obama took office, the Justice Department has
>>>>> aggressively pursued leak investigation and brought more criminal
>>>
>>>> So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>>>> Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>>>> received the information?
>>>
>>> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
>>> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
>>> off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
>>> criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
>>> And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
>>> "officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
>>> private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
>>
>> ?! What article are you reading?! This has nothing to do with Bush.
>>
>> WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
>
> They are going after the AP because a government stooge leaked
> information to them.
That's what I thought.
>>>> So I don't get it. Who are they going after? The person (in the
>>>> Justice Department) that leaked the information, or the reporter that
>>>> received the information?
>>>
>>> I think he's trying to ignore the fact that Bush broke the
>>> economy and that 9/11 was not investigated at all. The FBI were called
>>> off, all records were sealed. I suppose, in his own way, he is
>>> criticizing Obama for not having the balls to unseal them.
>>> And that in the Bush administration, phone taps were not done
>>> "officially" by the Justice Department, they were out-sourced to
>>> private para-military firms, so they do not "officially" exist.
>>
>> ?! What article are you reading?! This has nothing to do with Bush.
>>
>> WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
>
> They are going after the AP because a government stooge leaked
> information to them.
So in other words, they are infringing on the rights of many law abiding
citizens because of the actions of a single law breaker.
Another liberal tactic. Again, everything a liberal does is 100% wrong.
opel
May 19, 2013, 4:26:58 PM5/19/13
to
Fritz Wuehler
May 17, 2013, 4:53:29 PM5/17/13
to
Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in news:kn5ig1$tpn$1...@dont-email.me:
> WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
First, they may be trying to determine the identity of a
government whistle blower. Second, they may be trying to
intimidate journalists.
Take your pick.
I believe that they are more interested in shutting the
reporters up, but that's just me.
> WHO IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOING AFTER HERE?!
government whistle blower. Second, they may be trying to
intimidate journalists.
Take your pick.
I believe that they are more interested in shutting the
reporters up, but that's just me.
0 new messages