I’m so tired of this.

Absolutely, no doubt about it, this was, and is, a propaganda piece for the government. The timing, content, and manner it was “reported” show that.

It’s time for everyone to start calling out individuals at CNN. No, I don’t have any fantasies about it changing anything. But still, even though they likely have no shame, they should be shamed anyway in a futile attempt to wake the fuck up.

SHAME ON YOU Eric (and CNN). You KNOW this is propaganda. You KNOW that’s wrong and goes against what this country is supposed to be. And you KNOW that a lot of other stuff our government is doing is illegal.

You KNOW these things, yet carry on and carry the USG water for them. Do you even know how much of a traitor, not to mention an asshole, this makes you look like?

SHAME ON YOU.

Bravo Rep Cohen.

I did have to laugh though when he talked about the fact that because 52% of Americans favored legalization that it was wrong for Holder to go against what the American people want.

52%??? Are you kidding me??? They laugh at such a thing. Our government doesn’t mind going against the wishes of the American people even when there is a consensus among the vast majority. (Public Option, Cutting Social Security, Background checks before purchasing a gun, the wars. Hell, single payer polled better than 52% and they didn’t even allow that to be DISCUSSED!!

If someone from another planet saw these things there is no way any amount of debating could convince him/her that this country was in any way a “democracy” and we have a government that represents the people. No way.

This sounds like he made a verbal recusal and delegation to his deputy. I thought these guys were lawyers. I guess they are no longer sensitive to what appearances communicate.

Good point and well said.

Wow, this is a fantastic piece, explaining the details accurately as well as the reasons why this action was bad.

I have argued and still believe that this act doesn’t compare to the warrantless wiretapping under the Bush admin, but that doesn’t mean this wasn’t a dangerous act.

And to me, the key fact that may not be confirmed (and may never be) would be whether or not this overbroad request for a subpoena was merely the acts of a well meaning investigator attempting to identify a leaker or, much worse, an intentionally overbroad request in order to send the chilling effect described here.

To me, given the O administration’s track record of prosecuting whistle blowers and the security state’s desire to operate in total secrecy, it’s obvious it was an intentional act.

And that is unacceptable and egregious, even though it doesn’t compare to the warrantless wiretapping of the W administration (IMO).

It is just absolutely crystal clear to anyone paying attention that Obama’s claims to want to usher in the most transparent administration ever was a complete and total lie, and such secrecy is incompatible with democracy and leads to a fascist like if not actual fascist state. And that’s due to decisions by this administration. The Obama administration.

It would be nice if certain folks would focus on that outrage, and what it means in the long run and re-assess their support for such an administration that is responsible for this, as well as pushing for and signing a bill ending habeas corpus in the US along with evading due process and unilaterally killing citizens without proof of guilt and in no way an imminent threat in an active combat situation.

Any chance you folks will reassess? Or at least try and defend that??

I dunno, I guess I’m still confused.

To me it just still seems like their major error here was making the subpoena far too broad and the tactics used to get the subpoena didn’t match SOP. And because the target of the subpoena was a news organization, making the subpoena too broad can have serious negative effects too a “free” press (I use that term loosely here as IMO the media here in the US has become far too cozy with the government they’re supposed to be reporting on).

I get all that, do agree it’s bad, and those responsible should be held accountable, again as mentioned above, but for me, it just doesn’t come close to what W and The Dick did with their warrantless wiretapping.

One was a clear violation of the Constitution while the other may be a violation of DoJ guidelines and most certainly is a violation of trust but not a violation of any law that I can see.

Again though, maybe I’m missing something…

Okay, let’s pretend for our purposes it is true.

Would it still be outrageous? (I’m just trying to understand the uproar here is all)

Ok, I’m confused. (permanent state of mind for me)

I read this piece, and read the first several paragraphs of Marcy’s piece, and it still sounds to me like this was a subpoena for phone records only.

Now I think it may be fair to say the Justice Department was overly zealous in their investigation and made the subpoena too broad got it with tactics that let’s say aren’t their normal SOP, but I’m still not seeing enough to be completely outraged at this the was I was with the warrantless wiretapping.

Number 1) It still reads to me like this was gathering phone records ONLY (who called who and at what time for how long and how many times kind of stuff) and not intruding on the conversations themselves.

Number 2) I don’t even think this one could be chalked up to O’s handling of whistleblowers as the leaked info here was NOT whistleblowing.

Number 3) If I were a district attorney tasked with investigating a leak of classified material that resulted in the AP having info it shouldn’t, then I think my first reaction would be to see who has been talking to the AP. And thus I too would make a request for a subpoena of the phone records, ONLY to get who’s been talking to whom as a way to guide my further investigation.

I’m sorry, but I’m just not seeing the big deal about this one. Yes, it does sound like the DoJ used less than above board tactics to get the subpoena, and yes they should be held accountable for that, but dayem to me that just isn’t that big of a deal.

Unless of course I’m missing something….

Wait. Huh?

I thought it was just a subpoena for phone records, not listening to the conversations themselves.

Have I got this wrong?? Dammit, I knew it wouldn’t be long before the O admin did something…

Yeah, good point.

In fact, IMO we can’t even chalk this up to O’s overzealous prosecution of whistle blowers, because the leaded info here was not leaking something the government did wrong, it was just the fact that the CIA had somehow stopped a terrorist attack.

I wonder how long it will be before O does something that I can give him hell for?? I would bet not long, though I wish it were long.

Seriously, you guys are grabbing at straws because Bigelow didn’t make the movie you would have made.

I think you probably have a fair point here, as that’s probably true to some degree.

But IMO it’s also true that having the CIA actually make recommendations on what to take out of a private film, and then it gets taken out, is far more troubling than some folks grasping at straws.

I mean I take it you’re not arguing the fact that CIA did have editorial sway over at least parts of the film, since I can’t see how that’s possible given the documents discovered by the FOIA. So the CIA really did have input to a private film, a private film that was made about one of the most important topics in this country for years (catch Bin Laden), and centered around one of the most controversial topics we’ve faced recently (torture) and that is very troubling IMO.

Congress has systematically underfunded the Wall Street regulatory agencies and with these bills the regulators’ hands will be tied returning America to the pre-2008 system. More or less guaranteeing a crash.

I think the decision by the Obama administration to not hold a single person accountable for the meltdown and fraud more or less guaranteed another crash.

If we don’t have another crisis, it won’t be because the government stopped it, as they seem to be doing everything they can to guarantee another one. I hope that’s not a controversial statement. I mean, can anyone credibly argue that if bank robbers were not held accountable, that they wouldn’t rob banks again?? I’d like to see that argument.

By not only not holding them accountable, but also, too, actually rewarding them by bailouts massive enough to ensure bonuses continued unabated, the government has more or less given the financial MsOTU the message that they are absolutely free to do it again.

And given the profits they made last time, why wouldn’t they?

Don’t forget, the ACA that we have, not one Republican voted for it.

While completely true for quite some time, I wonder if that’s still technically true. I mean yes no republican legislator voted for it. But I suppose a case can be made that a Republican Supreme Court justice technically “voted for it” by voting to uphold it, couldn’t they?

they would have cut scenes that made the CIA look bumbling or the waterboarding
scene… but they didn’t.

If there was no torture scene, the CIA would have requested it be added to show their point that it was torture that got the required information.

So no, they would not have cut the torture waterboarding scenes.