The Benghazi embassy murders. The IRS targeting conservative groups. The DOJ's invasion of journalists' phone records. DOJ head, Eric Holder, poised to investigate himself. In only four words, how would you sum up the bevy of scandals currently surrounding the Obama administration?
sort by best latest
stclairjack, methinks they missed the boat not using this as a campaign slogan! lol
i'm humbled, i'd like to thank the GOP, the academy, and my mom,.... i always dreamed of this day but never realy though it get a "best answer"
stclairjack, just don't forget to return the evening gown back to Michelle O. ;)
Congrats stclairjack. bethperry. You're smart! You're sitting there, watching us bicker back and forth, below somewhere, and the whole time, you are going," CHA-CHING" . I had one of those questions recently. They are fun. Good Job.
IDONO, I had intended this as a light-hearted way for ppl to express a simple opinion on the topic. But now I wish I knew how to limit the political squabbling without disabling others the opportunity to post their original answers, lol!
Curtis Morrison is a freelance journalist and political activist who plans to attend Whittier Law School in the fall, but is currently under FBI investigation at the request of Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY-R).
and HE'S going after Holder? P-u-leeeeeeeez
He is under investigation because he illegally recorded conversations in violation of Fed & State Law. That is actually a crime. Had someone else recorded the conversation and turned it over to him, there would be no crime. Nice try again.
well, I keep asking you: what did Holder do that was illegal, deserving of perjury charge? GOP is splitting hairs. Holder not inquire for repeating info, but for acquiring it. What Rosen did was illegal too-he asked for classified info. GetsGOP pass!
Holder himself said under oath it is widely recognized it is NOT illegal for the PRESS to solicit info. The hearing was to directly address if the press was being prosecuted for such actions. He mislead and lied by omission of material info.
It's NOT illegal to solicit classified info? On what planet? And he did not lie. He said prosecuting was not in his mind.But gvt has right to know who is messing w lives, and how and why. AND this was 4 yrs ago,is he in jail? GOPPolitical malfeasance
It is not illegal for the PRESS. They have always been exempt as it is part of their job to uncover wrong doing. And he lied because he was naming Rosen co-conspirator as he was claiming it was not appropriate to do so and had no knowledge of it.
Naming is not the same as saying you will prosecute.It is looking into. And,as AG, that is his duty!"It even seems possible that the Republican-controlled House would go for a perjury indictment since it was a Fox reporter that Holder targeted."Bingo
Thats the point, he named someone as a potential Co-Conspirator for actions he KNEW and STATED was not illegal. Meaning he was attempting to subvert the freedom of the Press, and violated their 1st amd rights. Then failed to notify Rosen or congress.
By law, he doesn't have to notify them. He got a warrant. And the press absolutely has no right to subvert the USA, 1st amendment or not.They are no better than anyone else in that regard.In fact:the access makes it worse! Phony witch-hunt,as usual.
Wrong he is required by law to notify Rosen of the seizure. It is also illegal under the 4th amendment to seize someones records for actions you know are not illegal and cant be prosecuted, according to Holder himself and 100yrs of legal precedent.
Espionage against USA is most certainly illegal and can be prosecuted. Therefore, he had every right to seize records, phone calls whatever.All Holder said is that he wasn't thinking of prosecuting Rosen, and didn't believe in it. That is no lie.
Holder himself said under oath, it was NOT illegal for members of the PRESS to solicit information as is legal precedent. While he was simultaneously seizing records for what HE said was un-prosecuteable. 4th amendment violation. Pretty simple
May not be illegal, but Holder had right to find out what Rosen was up to. And sorry to tell you: the 4th amendment went out with the Patriot Act. Thanks to Bush:Holder is in his rights.Don't you recall?"If you're doing nothing wrong,what's the prob?
he has the right to seize only the records of the Gov't employee leaking. I suggested you read the origins of the constitution for a history lesson on the 4th. I guess the NY times was guilty of sedition for leaking classified Abu Gharib info.
they did.He in jail. But,"the source did not turn over the information to Rosen on his own initiative. Rather, Rosen allegedly persuaded him to do so.In general, it is unlawful for one person to solicit another to commit a criminal act." Rosen guilty
No it is not if you are member of the media. There is a Century of legal standing to back that up as Holder himself affirmed under oath. If he were guilty, they'd bring charges.But they can't. They were simply attacking anyone critical in the media.
a century huh?"the Bush administration has decided that they are going to prosecute potentially the Washington Post reporter on secret prisons in Eastern Europe, may prosecute the New York Times reporter who reported on secret eavesdropping (NSA)]."
Your really grasping. Eavesdropping can be illegal. Media can't steal information. They can however ask for and receive it if turned over voluntarily. The ability to inquire is a pillar of a free press.Which is why this has never happened before
Bulloney. It happens all the time, and the reason they are going after Holder is political. They have power now, they had power then. Holder gets harassed, Ashcroft, Gonzales got free pass. You can't pick and choose law by political power.Just-Us USA
Happens all the time...please cite one case of a media member ever being named as a co-conspirator for soliciting information since the sedition act was enacted. I will give you as much time as you need. just one example...shouldn't be hard to find
Gvt in charge going after media happens all time. Miller went to jail during Buschco remember?And, did it ever occur to you that Rosen did commit sedition? That he IS working against USA? Cause it did me. I think all of Fox is enemy organization.
Miller went to jail for failing to reveal a source. Not for reporting which was her job. And NO, he didn't because he is constitutionally protected, as Obama, Holder, SCOTUS and every AG since 1917 have stated. They just subverted the law secretly.
I agree with you LandmarkWealth. The Clinton administration was the most corrupt ever, and Obama has actually topped it. And the liberals are saying everything they can come up with to talk about how bad Republicans are in effort to divert attention.
Please tell me what tops invading a sovereign nation and torturing. Lying to Congress and outing a CIA agent. Framing an official into prison and firing for not going after Dems. Asking "are you a Christian?" when hiring for WH. Falsifying evidence?
Lying to congress...Try fact checking. The Clinton adm and every agency around the world had the same intel. Congress was not mislead. And The torture cases in Abu Garhib were isolated and prosecuted
Morrison taped McConnell, leaked it to Mother Jones...McConnell is going after him. Rosen solicited classified info of the US gvt--is safe because he's journo? nah...he's safe because he's Fox journo in Repub House.Nothing more or less.
Do you suffer short term memory loss. We already discussed that it is illegal under Federal & State Law to record someone without their knowledge.That is what he is being prosecuted for. Rosen did not break the law as the WH & Holder said.
definitely - it shows every time another scandal surfaces.
Outweighs them all...That's a stretch. Selling arms to free hostages was bad policy and illegal, but well intended. But hardly compares to using the IRS against your own citizens and trying to intimidate the media when they investigate you.
Umm, they were selling arms TO Iran to fund the Sandinistas They actually made deals to KEEP hostages longer to make Carter look bad. October Surprise.
IRS was looking into possible tax cheats...which is what the Tea Party is.Just doing their job.IMO
They were trying to fund anti communist rebels. There was no evidence that they kept hostages longer on purpose.Baseless accusation.And searching for tax cheats does not mean screening for political opposition. Otherwise you miss Tim Geithners file.
Bad policy? Oliver North was convicted for crimes because of it! Granted, the convictions were overturned, but because of immunity and not because it wasn't illegal!
As I said it was illegal. But the motive was to free hostages which was well intended. Nothing in the recent white house scandals was well intended. Only designed to attack political opposition and silence the media from investigating their actions.
You have confused two separate and distinct issues. The Iran Contra incident happened 5years after Carter left office. The so-called October surprise was related to the US Embassy in Iran. So Reagans Adm foiled a rescue before they took office...lol
I believe Iran-Contra was by direct orders from the White House. None of the scandals came by direct order of the President, as far as we know. Those good intentions ended up in the hands of gorillas. The whole picture speaks volumes.
Actually Iran contra did not come directly from Reagan...There was no evidence of it. And again they were trying to free hostages, not supress the press or punish political enemies. Hardly a moral equivalent.
That could be true. Have read it was HW Bush behind it. Have read that Reagan didn't trust him at all. Bush/North did Iran/Contra. Now North commentator on Fox. Go figure. G Gordon Liddy had gig on RW radio. Go figure.
You missing the point. I am not defending Iran Contra. But rather Just explaining there is no moral equivalent behind the motives versus todays scandals. Freeing hostages was noble. The methods were foolish and illegal.
If we are blaming Obama for not knowing about Benghazi or not knowing about the IRS, why not blame Reagan/Bush for not knowing where Iran-Contra would end up? Obama's scandals were created from the events. Reagan/Bush's created the event.
No where blaming him for covering up. Changing the Benghazi story five times. Hadn't heard about the IRS, but then every one in the oval office knew before the election. Then they arrange to plant questions for Lois Lerner.
Oh, I see. Everything R's do is noble and good, everything D's do is criminal. Gee, how MANY reasons were there for invading Iraq? How many times did they change? Gee, those House R's and the MSM sure didn't call that a Bush scandal, did they? Nope.
I don't believe I suggested anything of the sort. The difference is the scandals in the current adm are not one off's. They are a pattern of lawlessness in every agency unlike any other Dem or Repub administration in recent history.
I'm sorry...anyone who thinks Obama is worse than Bush is not living in the same universe. We are on such different planes, might as well be different planet.But the R's don't get to harass because of it! And they are. IF lying so bad,Gonzales first!
They are all guilty of something. But since we are splitting hairs, which is worse; the covering up of an event or initiating the event? The end result of Iran-Contra was loss of life. The result of a cover-up maybe loss of some jobs, but not lives.
The question is the motives. We don't know if Obama directed this yet. And may never know as long as people like Mrs Lerner take the 5th. But whoever ordered it, there motives in each case were not to help anyone and pose a threat to democracy.
Landmark. I'm talking about Benghazi compared to Iran- Contra. I think you knew that but tried to pull an O'Reilly on me. The IRS thing may be a threat to democracy, but is dwarfed by the impact an armed group of gorillas could have on the world.
"Bush secretly authorized the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails of individuals inside the United States without judicial warrants.
Info leaked:Federal agents launched a criminal investigation to determine the identity of the leaker." Impeach?
No the Bush adm obtained FISA warrants. They work differently. In terms if Benghazi, for all we know the order to stand down may have come from the WH. We won't know until they stop stonewalling and allow those involved to be interviewed.
The order to stand down came from David Patreous--CIA. and-
"Court Says Bush Illegally Wiretapped Two Americans" By David Kravets
03.31.10. And Gonzales lied to congress about getting approval by gang of 8. Impeach? Nope-R's are Untouchable. Dirty.
Davis Patraeus Oct 26-2012 "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” Are you just making this stuff up now. And I believe Gonzales was forced to resign as Holder will.
"If true, then somebody else did order them to stand down and Petraeus needs to name names. He also need to explain why he spouted the line on the video causing the Benghazi attack when he had to have known that talking point was utterly false."
I am assuming you haven't seen the emails turned over to congress the show it was the Adm changing the narrative of what transpired. Perhaps if the Adm would allow the witnesses to be deposed we might get some answers.
changed "embassy" to "center", or something? wow. treason. And you mean Pickering,who wanted to testify in public,but Felon Issa won't allow? Why is that, I wonder? And why not subpoena the IRS adm who requested the investigation?Bush's man?politics
Bit more than that.And the interim head of the IRS was not a Bush man but a donor to the BO campaign.Benghazi survivors been hid by state dept http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583988/email...
What more than Issa won't allow a man engaged in the issue to testify publically....and the man WANTS to. So--what's the hold up? Issa wants what he says to remain secret. Maybe you should ask: what
's Issa's motive?
What are you talking about...He was subpoenaed by Issa...He wants to be able to question him on classified issues first before he has a public hearing because you can't discuss classified info publicly. One step at a time.
"when I was subpoenaed in the probe of the leak of the identity of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson, it became clear that reporters could be labeled co-conspirators, aiders and abettors or accessories in criminal leak cases." Walter Pincus
Pincus was never labeled a co-conspirator, aider or abettor. He was subpoenaed and refused to reveal a sources as his right. He only came forward after his source revealed themselves anyway. There was no warrant issued to seize his records.
lovemychris. Why shouldn't they be? If I refuse to reveal the identity of a person I witnessed committing a crime such as murder or any other, I go to jail. While respecting free press, are they not obligated to obey the law like every other citizen?
I agree. They no more moral or free from crooked intent as anyone else. And the scary part is their power. Just look at how Fox has steered the agenda. People abuse 1st just like they abuse 2nd. 4th is long gone.Way pre-Obama.Media is paid informant.
Except he didn't break the Law as the President and Holder have stated. Which means they were simply using the authority of their agency to persecute Rosen for doing his job, as well as the AP reporters and possible a CBS reporter.
Yeah...the Dept of Justice should be allowed to persecute reporters for doing their job. Who needs that pesky 1st amendment. And what's wrong with the IRS being used as a weapon to target political enemies ? The law is only for some of us..not all
Bush and Cheney duped the country into going to war using intelligence that they knew was inaccurate....not to mention The Patriot Act. But as you say....the law is only for some of us. Conservatives are no better.
Bush's adm has nothing to do with the issues at hand. And the intelligence was the same from every intelligence agency around the world. MI5.DGSE etc. As well as the same intelligence the Clinton adm reported to the American people.
Apparently there is no evidence to prove any of the charges the rightwing opposition is asserting, so I am going to just assume that these allegations are only part of a hidden agenda. I think they couldn't care less about the victims of Benghazi.
There is a lot of evidence, as of yesterdays evidence that Holder signed off on Rosen's email and phone invasion. he has officially perjured himself. And he is already in contempt of congress over failure to release fast and furious documents
OK. I guess Holder should resign or go to prison.
And about the IRS scandal: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/obama-pres...
Yes he should...and churches engaged in political speech are supposed to loose their tax exempt status. However, their was no specific administrative procedure set up to flag liberal groups during those years as was the case here.
“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in,heard of, or would think would be wise policy,”Holder said during the hearing.
Another Goose Chase, political sabotage
He never heard of it...LOL. He only signed off on the request for the subpoena, was denied by two Federal Judges and then shopped around until the third one approved it. How could have possibly known about the request he personally made.
They don't prosecute for disclosure, they prosecute for the manner in which the material was obtained. This is what FOX/GOP is skewering to make it look like a lie. As usual, they are Koo-Koo-Ville pretending to be Deep Throat. Ridiculous characters.
The manner in which it is obtained is not a crime either unless he personally stole it. Which nobody ever even suggested. Nice try. And guys like Bob Woodward whom have been all over these scandals doesn't work for FOX.
"Rosen was not under investigation for his purported "disclosure," rather for soliciting a government official's disclosure of classified information. Holder's testimony is completely reconcilable with the warrant request"
Where's the perjury?
Because it is not illegal for a member of the Media to solicit classified info and Holder knows that full well. media have never been charged for seeking info. Which means he knew he was requesting a subpoena for something that couldn't be prosecuted
1917 Espionage Act, which made it a crime for an unauthorized person to receive national defense information and transmit it to others.
The media is and has been exempt under the first amendment. Otherwise the NY times would have been guilty of espionage in the 2003-05 leaks. Instead the White asked them not to print sensitive info.(They did anyway)They didn't attempt to charge them
Obama hasn't fired Republican lawyers for not prosecuting enough Republicans either...I still don't see where is Holder's perjury? And Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress--they never charged him. It's not gvt by political persuasion, so what gives?
The hearing inquired specifically about attempts to criminalize reporters doing there jobs. He intentionally gave an answer that was intended to mislead them.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e5B5ysVI2o. " The focus should not be on who acquired "
Wait a sec. if you are exposing classified info, you are committing a crime! Why wasn't the hearing on that? Why go after Holder for investigating possible betrayal? Plus--Wiretapping and spying was made law by Bush. You can't get Holder or using it!
I don't why this is so hard for you...Holder and everyone except you seems to understand the Media has special privileges protected by the constitution that make it legal. There is not and never has been any law by any Administration to change that.
Did I miss something or am I being told that the media has special, protected privileges to commit treason? I guess I had better read that 1st amendment a little better because I must have skipped over that part.
Soliciting classified information in not treason for the media. If they can't actively inquire about misdeeds than we have no free press, which is why the have ALWAYS been exempt. Apparently you both missed holders testimony affirming this fact.
If he affirmed it, and traitor Rosen has not gone to jail: what is your beef?
Because he used the threat of prosecution as a form of political intimidation of the media for acts that weren't illegal. Without the media free to report on Gov't it can not serve as a check on gov't and nullifies the concept of a free press.
Republicans did not shot themselves in their own foot, Obama brought this on himself.
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide