Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#43 May 24, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
the doctor was handled by the CIA so that is on the director if anyone.
if the IRS failed to deliver documents what does that have to do with the WH.
that falls upon the new head of the IRS.
blaming the new guy for the documents not being provided before he was appointed is just wrong.
if he fails to turn over documents in a reasonable time then there is a beef.
the republicans hyped the Libya e-mails even though they had the correct ones from reviewing the documents presented to them.
the republicans were trying to juice up the e-mails for political purposes.
Issa had no problem with the IG report (with delays) or he would have been screaming on tv and he did not.
So who was held accountable for throwing the doctor under the bus? Where are the efforts to free him, while we continue to send billions to Pakistan to buy their "loyalty."?

What does ignoring Congress have to do with the WH? The IRS is under the DOJ. Who's in charge of the DOJ? Who does he report to? You can go up the chain of command as far as you'd like, but you can bet that all Obama or Holder has to do is pick up the phone and tell the IRS Chairman to fully cooperate with Congress and it's a done deal. You have to wonder why they are satisfied with "less than" full cooperation.

Give Issa a break - he's juggling three investigations at a time! LOL
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#44 May 24, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
So who was held accountable for throwing the doctor under the bus? Where are the efforts to free him, while we continue to send billions to Pakistan to buy their "loyalty."?
What does ignoring Congress have to do with the WH? The IRS is under the DOJ. Who's in charge of the DOJ? Who does he report to? You can go up the chain of command as far as you'd like, but you can bet that all Obama or Holder has to do is pick up the phone and tell the IRS Chairman to fully cooperate with Congress and it's a done deal. You have to wonder why they are satisfied with "less than" full cooperation.
Give Issa a break - he's juggling three investigations at a time! LOL
and closing the supply lines to Afghanistan would not cause problems?
that is why the bluster about stopping the aid to Pakistan is just talk.
if the Pakis tell us to leave we either give up Afghanistan or go to war with Pakistan.

as to the IRS i do not see them under the DOJ.
perhaps i am missing it from their organizational chart

http://www.justice.gov/agencies/index-list.ht...

i only find the IRS under the Treasury department

http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-...

unless i am looking at it wrong Holder has no authority to order the IRS to do anything.
and the President can call and be accused of interfering with the IRS.
the call should be from Congress and if the info is not released then call the head of the IRS to answer for the problem.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#45 May 24, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>and closing the supply lines to Afghanistan would not cause problems?
that is why the bluster about stopping the aid to Pakistan is just talk.
if the Pakis tell us to leave we either give up Afghanistan or go to war with Pakistan.

as to the IRS i do not see them under the DOJ.
perhaps i am missing it from their organizational chart

http://www.justice.gov/agencies/index-list.ht...

i only find the IRS under the Treasury department

http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-...

unless i am looking at it wrong Holder has no authority to order the IRS to do anything.
and the President can call and be accused of interfering with the IRS.
the call should be from Congress and if the info is not released then call the head of the IRS to answer for the problem.
I wasn't taking a position on giving money to Pakistan, but I wouldn't call it "aid." But it certainly could be used as leverage.

Yes, the IRS is under Treasury. I don't know why I said DOJ, I guess Holder is on my mind because Obama just put him in charge of investigating his own agency in the Rosen affair. That should turn out well. He's already proven himself a liar in his testimony to Congress about signing off on the Rosen search warrant. Anyhow, too many scandals, it's getting confusing.

In any case, the AG is the chief law enforcer. He can force the IRS to comply with a lawful subpoena under threat of criminal prosecution. Congress makes laws and holds hearings - I don't think it has the power to prosecute anyone. And all Obama has to do is hit speed dial to Holder.
diesel

White Haven, PA

#46 May 24, 2013
Excerpted from THE NEW YORKER

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.

The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.

E-mails, Machen wrote,“are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”

He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise:“The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Also, Holder personally vetted this case about Rosen...so he not only knew, he wanted it to go through.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#47 May 24, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't taking a position on giving money to Pakistan, but I wouldn't call it "aid." But it certainly could be used as leverage.
Yes, the IRS is under Treasury. I don't know why I said DOJ, I guess Holder is on my mind because Obama just put him in charge of investigating his own agency in the Rosen affair. That should turn out well. He's already proven himself a liar in his testimony to Congress about signing off on the Rosen search warrant. Anyhow, too many scandals, it's getting confusing.
In any case, the AG is the chief law enforcer. He can force the IRS to comply with a lawful subpoena under threat of criminal prosecution. Congress makes laws and holds hearings - I don't think it has the power to prosecute anyone. And all Obama has to do is hit speed dial to Holder.
and to the Rosen case one interesting view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/us/politics...

"But in March 2009, a State Department press officer asked Mr. Kim to speak about North Korea to a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, and the two began to talk and exchange e-mails. Mr. Kim sent some e-mails under an online pseudonym,“Leo Grace.”

"When F.B.I. agents questioned Mr. Kim, he claimed he had spoken to Mr. Rosen only once. He admitted to more contacts only after agents confronted him with evidence, according to court filings".

so now Fox did not know anything about Rosen and what he was doing?
the question can be raised why Fox did not pounce on the story when it was published.
seems Rosen and Fox would not comment on his discussions with Kim.
at the time.
so the Fox screed of journalists being hounded does not fit when they knew that Rosen was identified in a story in 2011.
of course at that time Fox was demanding punishment for classified leaks (along with the dangerous reporters publishing such info).
so one could see how they would overlook such things.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#48 May 24, 2013
diesel wrote:
Excerpted from THE NEW YORKER
The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.
The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.
E-mails, Machen wrote,“are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”
He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise:“The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
Also, Holder personally vetted this case about Rosen...so he not only knew, he wanted it to go through.
and Royce C. Lamberth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lambert...

"He was nominated to the federal bench on March 19, 1987 by President Ronald Reagan,"

so a republican(President Reagan) appointed judge viewed the warrant as a good idea.
guess the judge thought leaking classified info was something the government should go after.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#49 May 24, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>and to the Rosen case one interesting view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/us/politics...

"But in March 2009, a State Department press officer asked Mr. Kim to speak about North Korea to a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, and the two began to talk and exchange e-mails. Mr. Kim sent some e-mails under an online pseudonym,“Leo Grace.”

"When F.B.I. agents questioned Mr. Kim, he claimed he had spoken to Mr. Rosen only once. He admitted to more contacts only after agents confronted him with evidence, according to court filings".

so now Fox did not know anything about Rosen and what he was doing?
the question can be raised why Fox did not pounce on the story when it was published.
seems Rosen and Fox would not comment on his discussions with Kim.
at the time.
so the Fox screed of journalists being hounded does not fit when they knew that Rosen was identified in a story in 2011.
of course at that time Fox was demanding punishment for classified leaks (along with the dangerous reporters publishing such info).
so one could see how they would overlook such things.
All this says (to me) is that the FBI and the WH had a hard-on for leakers following the Wikileaks embarrassment and Rosen and Kim were easy targets. Considering the unimportance of the disclosures, the abuse of power is astounding. Again, the comparison between Wikileaks and Rosen is ludicrous. There was no damage, intended or realized, to the US by Kim's or Rosen's disclosures regarding North Korea. Kim was working for the govt and breached confidentiality. Reporters should not be held to that standard; it's their job to keep govt honest and accountable to the citizenry. Otherwise, we have an Imperial Presidency and not a representative democracy. Sounds Nixonian, doesn't it?
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#50 May 25, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
All this says (to me) is that the FBI and the WH had a hard-on for leakers following the Wikileaks embarrassment and Rosen and Kim were easy targets. Considering the unimportance of the disclosures, the abuse of power is astounding. Again, the comparison between Wikileaks and Rosen is ludicrous. There was no damage, intended or realized, to the US by Kim's or Rosen's disclosures regarding North Korea. Kim was working for the govt and breached confidentiality. Reporters should not be held to that standard; it's their job to keep govt honest and accountable to the citizenry. Otherwise, we have an Imperial Presidency and not a representative democracy. Sounds Nixonian, doesn't it?
not really.
fox was on the warpath about leaks and had one of their own neck deep in publishing leaks.
fox just played their usual game and ignored their problem while screaming about everyone else.
the fox reporter stated his aims when talking to Kim.
Rosen wanted any info from Kim that was available.
he was not confirming a story.
he was looking for a conduit.
now all of a sudden fox manages a 180 and cries about their reporter and leaking classified info is no problem.
their fake outrage is typical.
or they have a really poor memory of what they claim to be principles.
Inquiring Mind

Cape May, NJ

#51 May 25, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>not really.
fox was on the warpath about leaks and had one of their own neck deep in publishing leaks.
fox just played their usual game and ignored their problem while screaming about everyone else.
the fox reporter stated his aims when talking to Kim.
Rosen wanted any info from Kim that was available.
he was not confirming a story.
he was looking for a conduit.
now all of a sudden fox manages a 180 and cries about their reporter and leaking classified info is no problem.
their fake outrage is typical.
or they have a really poor memory of what they claim to be principles.
Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to witch hunts. Republican - Bad. Democrat - Good. Makes your assertion of hypocrisy by FNC not very credible.

Thanks to all the veterans and active-duty military for your sacrifices. You deserve better than you're getting from the govt you swore to protect.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#52 May 25, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to witch hunts. Republican - Bad. Democrat - Good. Makes your assertion of hypocrisy by FNC not very credible.
Thanks to all the veterans and active-duty military for your sacrifices. You deserve better than you're getting from the govt you swore to protect.
no i have an aversion to witch hunts regardless of party.
Fox news published classified material while denouncing others for doing so.
simply put,
when the story of Rosen and Kim was published Fox should have cried just like they are now.
they did not as they were too busy crying about classified info being leaked and published.
so it is OK for fox to publish classified material but wrong for the NY Times to publish classified material?
hardly "fair and balanced".
Inquiring Mind

Cape May, NJ

#53 May 25, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>no i have an aversion to witch hunts regardless of party.
Fox news published classified material while denouncing others for doing so.
simply put,
when the story of Rosen and Kim was published Fox should have cried just like they are now.
they did not as they were too busy crying about classified info being leaked and published.
so it is OK for fox to publish classified material but wrong for the NY Times to publish classified material?
hardly "fair and balanced".
How does an Imperial Presidency get away with harassing and intimidating the free press? They declare info "classified", no matter how inconsequential. Rosen was doing his job. Just like Susan Rice, so I'd think you'd be demanding an apology to him as well. I won't hold my breath.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#54 May 25, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
How does an Imperial Presidency get away with harassing and intimidating the free press? They declare info "classified", no matter how inconsequential. Rosen was doing his job. Just like Susan Rice, so I'd think you'd be demanding an apology to him as well. I won't hold my breath.
Rosen was going a little beyond his job.
when the investigators find Rosens articles on Kim's desk it really does not need Sherlock Holmes to figure out the parties involved.
so Rosen became a target based upon his own actions.
the burn phone and the cryptic signalling system between the two for example.
had the DOJ just picked Rosen's name out of a hat then there would be reason for fox to cry their crocodile tears.
Inquiring Mind

Cape May, NJ

#55 May 25, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>Rosen was going a little beyond his job.
when the investigators find Rosens articles on Kim's desk it really does not need Sherlock Holmes to figure out the parties involved.
so Rosen became a target based upon his own actions.
the burn phone and the cryptic signalling system between the two for example.
had the DOJ just picked Rosen's name out of a hat then there would be reason for fox to cry their crocodile tears.
So Woodward and Bernstein should have been prosecuted for meeting "Deepthroat" in secret? This is how investigative journalism works. You go after stories and encourage sources. Rosen didn't steal files or jeopardize national security. The comparison with wikileaks is lame at best, but bash FNC if you like. There's no "there" there as someone once said.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#56 May 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
So Woodward and Bernstein should have been prosecuted for meeting "Deepthroat" in secret? This is how investigative journalism works. You go after stories and encourage sources. Rosen didn't steal files or jeopardize national security. The comparison with wikileaks is lame at best, but bash FNC if you like. There's no "there" there as someone once said.
I am not comparing wikileaks and Rosen you are.
the right wing and fox have declared that certain newpapers should have their reporters charged with espionage over leaks of classified info.
my question is why did the right wing give a pass to Rosen when he leaked classified info?
seems he did the same as the NY Times yet the right wing did not demand he be prosecuted for espionage.
or his employer for that matter.
Inquiring Mind

Cape May, NJ

#57 May 26, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>I am not comparing wikileaks and Rosen you are.
the right wing and fox have declared that certain newpapers should have their reporters charged with espionage over leaks of classified info.
my question is why did the right wing give a pass to Rosen when he leaked classified info?
seems he did the same as the NY Times yet the right wing did not demand he be prosecuted for espionage.
or his employer for that matter.
The answer is simple, but you just refuse to acknowledge it. What Rosen disclosed did not even approach anything near espionage, while the thousands of classified, top-secret communications stolen and then intentionally disclosed by a foreign national to damage the United States and its allies was espionage by definition. FNC is standing behind its employee and the Constitution. They may have considered that the NYT was aiding and abetting an enemy. FWIW, I don't think any journalist should be criticized or prosecuted for publishing leaked information unless it really does jeopardize our national security our people, or our allies. As far as I know, Rosen's info didn't hurt anyone. You can't say that about the NYT's actions.

Now if you want to look at the situation as just black and white, fair enough. FNC didn't jump on Rosen like they did the NYT. But Democrats are all about shades of gray, aren't they? For example, Holder's assertion that he did sign the Rosen search warrant. Then later his unapologetic statement that he did sign it. Some people would call that a lie by a public official, grounds for dismissal - or at least a reprimand by his boss. Black and white. What would you call it?
Inquiring Mind

Cape May, NJ

#58 May 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>The answer is simple, but you just refuse to acknowledge it. What Rosen disclosed did not even approach anything near espionage, while the thousands of classified, top-secret communications stolen and then intentionally disclosed by a foreign national to damage the United States and its allies was espionage by definition. FNC is standing behind its employee and the Constitution. They may have considered that the NYT was aiding and abetting an enemy. FWIW, I don't think any journalist should be criticized or prosecuted for publishing leaked information unless it really does jeopardize our national security our people, or our allies. As far as I know, Rosen's info didn't hurt anyone. You can't say that about the NYT's actions.

Now if you want to look at the situation as just black and white, fair enough. FNC didn't jump on Rosen like they did the NYT. But Democrats are all about shades of gray, aren't they? For example, Holder's assertion that he did sign the Rosen search warrant. Then later his unapologetic statement that he did sign it. Some people would call that a lie by a public official, grounds for dismissal - or at least a reprimand by his boss. Black and white. What would you call it?
Sorry, I meant to write he said at first he DIDN'T sign it before he said he did sign it.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#59 May 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is simple, but you just refuse to acknowledge it. What Rosen disclosed did not even approach anything near espionage, while the thousands of classified, top-secret communications stolen and then intentionally disclosed by a foreign national to damage the United States and its allies was espionage by definition. FNC is standing behind its employee and the Constitution. They may have considered that the NYT was aiding and abetting an enemy. FWIW, I don't think any journalist should be criticized or prosecuted for publishing leaked information unless it really does jeopardize our national security our people, or our allies. As far as I know, Rosen's info didn't hurt anyone. You can't say that about the NYT's actions.
Now if you want to look at the situation as just black and white, fair enough. FNC didn't jump on Rosen like they did the NYT. But Democrats are all about shades of gray, aren't they? For example, Holder's assertion that he did sign the Rosen search warrant. Then later his unapologetic statement that he did sign it. Some people would call that a lie by a public official, grounds for dismissal - or at least a reprimand by his boss. Black and white. What would you call it?
and the basis for the so called "lie" is rather shaky.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/25/report...

holder said

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

then

"The government accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in its search warrant application, something that, according to his testimony, Holder had not “ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

holder is talking about prosecution of a journalist.

the claim in the warrant is a different item.
apples and oranges.
the warrant has nothing to do with prosecution.
that decision would be based on info from the wiretap.
Rosen was not charged .

so it is a stretch to say Holder lied.
Holder said he was not involved (in the prosecution)of a journalist.
which is true.
calling a journalist a "co-conspirator" in a warrant is not the same as prosecuting a journalist.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#60 May 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I meant to write he said at first he DIDN'T sign it before he said he did sign it.
i figured that was the case,no problemo.
one thing.
Rosen and his sin is different from wikileaks.
however any classied info leaked in the NY times has been attacked.
it seems the right wing has a problem with that paper.
numerous times they have wanted to prosecute the NY Times.
for example the NSA scandal or the SWIFT program.
of course then it was something that the right wing would prefer not to have the public know about.
KingFish

Quakertown, PA

#61 May 27, 2013
Happy Memorial Day, douchbar. Maybe you can "Cut and Paste" the reason this day is celebrated.
Inquiring Mind

Cape May, NJ

#62 May 27, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>and the basis for the so called "lie" is rather shaky.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/25/report...

holder said

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

then

"The government accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in its search warrant application, something that, according to his testimony, Holder had not “ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

holder is talking about prosecution of a journalist.

the claim in the warrant is a different item.
apples and oranges.
the warrant has nothing to do with prosecution.
that decision would be based on info from the wiretap.
Rosen was not charged .

so it is a stretch to say Holder lied.
Holder said he was not involved (in the prosecution)of a journalist.
which is true.
calling a journalist a "co-conspirator" in a warrant is not the same as prosecuting a journalist.
LOL. And it depends on what the meaning of "is" is I suppose.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Plus Family Dental (Jul '14) 2 hr ShirleyWill12 31
Quakertown corrupts in close quarters. 11 hr In the Know 5
Freckles 13 hr PooperScooper 3
Neighborhood Bully May 2 ilikeher 3
Ametek U.S. Gauge (Jul '12) May 1 Historic S-evil 128
Poll Who feels Tim Arnold should not be re-elected? May 1 Facebook 14
public nuisance May 1 titsmcgee 5
More from around the web

Coopersburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]