[O'Reilly Factor] Obama targeting leakers?

[Ubiquitous]

O'REILLY: "Factor Follow-up Segment" tonight, the Obama administration
has indicted six federal employees for leaking classified information,
that's more than any other administration. What exactly is going on?

Joining us from Washington Mark Zaid, an attorney who often represents
federal employees, who get caught up in this kind of stuff. So we have a
lot of covert operations around the world in the war on terror. And if
the press finds out about them people could die. I think we all know
that.

And so is the Obama administration doing anything wrong here by upping
the prosecutions of the leakers?

MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: No. Not necessarily. I mean leaks
need to be prosecuted as you said my clients are often covert
intelligence officers, military members and a leak could actually cause
them harm could lead to their death.

O'REILLY: Yes.

ZAID: What's -- what's different since the Clinton administration and
the Bush administration both of which deplored leaks and wanted to go
after in fact many of these cases started in the investigative phase in
the Bush administration. What's changed is the evidence. This
administration has had access to the evidence mostly electronic --
e-mails, phone records like with the AP, the recent AP issuance of a
subpoena. And they have been able to prosecute going forward.

O'REILLY: We're at the --

ZAID: Go ahead.

O'REILLY: -- you are saying that the high tech apparatus the Justice
Department now has enables them to ferret out these leakers a lot easier
than had been in the past.

ZAID: Than ever before.

O'REILLY: Ok.

ZAID: It's no longer the days of Woodward Bernstein meeting deep throat
at 2:00 o'clock in the morning in the parking garage.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: And you know what's interesting about that we had a guy who
working at Fox News recently convicted of a crime by taking information
from Fox News and giving it to Fox haters. And they tracked this guy down
like that because our security people here are very, very tech savvy. So
that's an interesting thing.

ZAID: Sure.

O'REILLY: All right.

ZAID: Well people think for example they'll use encrypted e-mail which
even perhaps the NSA can't break. Well that's not good when the United
States takes a subpoena, goes to the Internet provider and grabs all the
e-mails and hard copy.

O'REILLY: Right. It's hard to get around. So that's what's happening.
Now, the story breaks, 20 phone lines and again, they weren't tapped.

ZAID: Right.

O'REILLY: All right. It wasn't like the feds were tapping these guys
they wanted to see who they were calling on 20 different lines so that
they could match it with -- is there anybody working in a classified
capacity that these Associated Press reporters are talking to? And
therefore, if there were, we'll pick those people up, right? That's what
it was about.

ZAID: Right to at least show there was a communication between the two.
Obviously they won't know the contents --

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Right.

ZAID: -- but perhaps they might have interviewed people who said I did
not speak with them.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: -- NSA or the CIA or any other Intel agency and they have got
six call sheets for an AP reporter.

ZAID: Right.

O'REILLY: The FBI is going to go in and talk to them.

ZAID: Exactly.

O'REILLY: Now all of this makes sense. But the Associated Press is
saying "Listen, that was way too much. I mean, you went in on a fishing
expedition and now you have got people involved. You are checking people
out." That's invasion of their privacy and this is what you can't do in a
free society. How do you answer that?

ZAID: Well, they may be right. We don't know because we don't know yet
the scope of what the investigation is actually about.

O'REILLY: But neither does Holder. He doesn't know either.

ZAID: Right because he accused himself.

O'REILLY: And other guy who is in charge won't tell us.

ZAID: Right.

O'REILLY: I don't like that. Do you like that?

ZAID: No well, no. I mean, but there are guidelines that are being - -
presumably being followed.


O'REILLY: How do we know if nobody will tell us what they did?

ZAID: We'll know -- we'll know at some point. The problem with this,
Bill, is that this administration, coming in on its grounds of
transparency and wanting to be the presidency that would protect national
security, in particular whistleblowers, has done little to nothing to do
so. People don't wake up one morning and say "I'm going to become a
whistle blower or a leaker" and leak classified information.

O'REILLY: And Hicks got hammered when Hicks the second in command in
Libya started criticizing the security. They got pounded.

ZAID: Yes there is no mechanism for these people to come forward and
tell people internally to the government I'm concerned about something.
And what will you do about it?

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Right, there is abuse of power, right. All right, well, we've
got to strengthen those laws. Counsel thanks very much.

ZAID: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: A very interesting segment.


--
"When exactly Mr. President, were you convinced the Benghazi attack was
generated by organized terrorists and not by a spontaneous mob? Two
weeks after the attack on 9/11, you were still referencing an
anti-Muslim video when you were just told days after the attack by your
own national security people that al-Qaeda was most likely linked to the
killing of the Ambassador."
-- Bill O'Reilly

[Hass]

On May 17, 3:58 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> O'REILLY:  "Factor Follow-up Segment" tonight, the Obama administration

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity