Wayward Herring - This week the liberal media will be calling President Obama the "Comeback Kid" amid the three scandals that have rocked the White House. The media will be back on the Obama train and start criticizing the Republicans for politicizing the scandals. The liberal media will say the "Low information Voters" are not interested in the scandals they are concerned about economy and jobs. The Obama Administration has already signaled to there liberal media friends that they will only spend ten percent of there time on the scandals. The Obama Administration will use Republican leaders like Rep. Darrell Issa as a scapegoat to get the progressive establishment back in President Obama corner. The "Low Information Voters" will never turn against President Obama, because they are support "Big Government Welfare State" that will support them from cradle to grave. The Obama minions in the White House and Liberal Media will never let the Republicans have win against President Obama and destroy his historic legacy. The faux outrage by the liberal media is fools gold for Republicans and Conservatives and they will turn there media pens against the Conservative agenda this week. The Republicans will have to find the smoking gun in one these scandals to finally, impeach President Obama. The Republicans after last week furor over the three scandals will not get any more help from the liberal media.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
Justice Dept. Secretly Taps Telephone Records Of Asociated Press Reporters
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
|
In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."
Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.
In the letter notifying the AP, which was received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.
Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012, story.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the investigative House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said on CNN, "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press."
The American Civil Liberties Union said the use of subpoenas for a broad swath of records has a chilling effect both on journalists and whistleblowers who want to reveal government wrongdoing. "The attorney general must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again," said Laura Murphy, the director of ACLU's Washington legislative office.
Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.
William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations." But he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an email.
The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department might have taken to get information in the case.
A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.
The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."
News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."
It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.
The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.
The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."
The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.
The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.
Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he wrote.
He also defended the White House decision to discuss the plot afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
White House Will Not Answer Questions On Benghazi Stand Down Order
Steve Watson
May 7, 2013
In a remarkable exchange Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney failed to directly address questions regarding explosive claims by a whistleblower that US Special forces personnel were ordered to stand down as the attack on the US embassy was taking place.
During a press conference, the senior White House correspondent for Fox News Channel, Ed Henry pressed Carney on the issue, stating:
“Why is Greg Hicks, who was the number two to Ambassador Stevens, now going to tell the Congress and the American people that there were US special forces who were in Tripoli, ready to board a plane, come to Benghazi to help these Americans, and they were told to stand down?”
In several attempts to dodge the question, Carney referred Henry to The Department of Defense, stating “I don’t have access to the interviews that I think have been referred to and some of the news reports.”
“Hicks is challenging the credibility of the White House,” Henry persisted. “You don’t care about what he’s saying? Do you think he’s lying?”
“You’re citing an interview that I don’t have.” Carney again claimed, adding that the official narrative has been corroborated by the Accountability Review Board and White House officials.
Watch the video:
As several mainstream reports have detailed, Hicks has stated that following the murder of Ambassador Stevens, and while the attack on the American embassy was still ongoing, “The Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements.”
Hicks claims that as a specials ops team was about to board the plane, they received a phone call from Special Operations Command Africa saying, “you can’t go now; you don’t have authority to go now.”
“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.” Hicks said. In the hours that passed afterward, three more American diplomats were killed by the attackers in a hail of bullets, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
Hicks’ claims directly contradict those of the Obama administration, which has stated that all personnel at every point in the chain of command were engaged in providing help, and that “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”
Hicks’ claims came in a pre testimony interview, portions of which were leaked ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, possibly in order to protect him. Hicks is also quoted as saying that he believed the incident was a terrorist attack from the outset. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Hicks said.
He also stated that he finds it astounding that White House officials have directly contradicted Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf, who told CBS the same day that the attack was “preplanned, predetermined” by militants with ties to al Qaeda.
“The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The impact of that is immeasurable.” Hicks is quoted as saying.
In a separate press briefing Monday, at the State Department, spokesman Patrick Ventrell also refused to directly answer questions relating to Hicks, and Mark Thompson, another State Department official also set to testify in Congress on Wednesday.
“Before we get to the specifics of what they’re expected to testify, I wonder if you could provide us with your assessment of the caliber of these two individuals,” James Rosen of Fox News asked Ventrell. “Are they credible? They’ve been working at fairly senior posts here and abroad for years and years. I wonder first what thoughts the Department has about the caliber of these two individuals.”
Ventrell repeatedly responded that he was not in a position to “assess” the witnesses:
Ventrell also refused to directly answer a question posed by a CNS News reporter, who asked exactly who within the administration was responsible for telling then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the attack in Benghazi was being justified as “a response to inflammatory material posted on Internet.”
The claim appeared in Clinton’s written “Statement on the Attack in Benghazi” released in the 10:00 p.m. hour Washington, D.C. time on the day of the attack. Ventrell repeated the same empty claims as Carney that the ARB has thoroughly reviewed the issue:
May 7, 2013
In a remarkable exchange Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney failed to directly address questions regarding explosive claims by a whistleblower that US Special forces personnel were ordered to stand down as the attack on the US embassy was taking place.
During a press conference, the senior White House correspondent for Fox News Channel, Ed Henry pressed Carney on the issue, stating:
“Why is Greg Hicks, who was the number two to Ambassador Stevens, now going to tell the Congress and the American people that there were US special forces who were in Tripoli, ready to board a plane, come to Benghazi to help these Americans, and they were told to stand down?”
In several attempts to dodge the question, Carney referred Henry to The Department of Defense, stating “I don’t have access to the interviews that I think have been referred to and some of the news reports.”
“Hicks is challenging the credibility of the White House,” Henry persisted. “You don’t care about what he’s saying? Do you think he’s lying?”
“You’re citing an interview that I don’t have.” Carney again claimed, adding that the official narrative has been corroborated by the Accountability Review Board and White House officials.
Watch the video:
As several mainstream reports have detailed, Hicks has stated that following the murder of Ambassador Stevens, and while the attack on the American embassy was still ongoing, “The Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements.”
Hicks claims that as a specials ops team was about to board the plane, they received a phone call from Special Operations Command Africa saying, “you can’t go now; you don’t have authority to go now.”
“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.” Hicks said. In the hours that passed afterward, three more American diplomats were killed by the attackers in a hail of bullets, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
Hicks’ claims directly contradict those of the Obama administration, which has stated that all personnel at every point in the chain of command were engaged in providing help, and that “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”
Hicks’ claims came in a pre testimony interview, portions of which were leaked ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, possibly in order to protect him. Hicks is also quoted as saying that he believed the incident was a terrorist attack from the outset. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Hicks said.
He also stated that he finds it astounding that White House officials have directly contradicted Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf, who told CBS the same day that the attack was “preplanned, predetermined” by militants with ties to al Qaeda.
“The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The impact of that is immeasurable.” Hicks is quoted as saying.
In a separate press briefing Monday, at the State Department, spokesman Patrick Ventrell also refused to directly answer questions relating to Hicks, and Mark Thompson, another State Department official also set to testify in Congress on Wednesday.
“Before we get to the specifics of what they’re expected to testify, I wonder if you could provide us with your assessment of the caliber of these two individuals,” James Rosen of Fox News asked Ventrell. “Are they credible? They’ve been working at fairly senior posts here and abroad for years and years. I wonder first what thoughts the Department has about the caliber of these two individuals.”
Ventrell repeatedly responded that he was not in a position to “assess” the witnesses:
Ventrell also refused to directly answer a question posed by a CNS News reporter, who asked exactly who within the administration was responsible for telling then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the attack in Benghazi was being justified as “a response to inflammatory material posted on Internet.”
The claim appeared in Clinton’s written “Statement on the Attack in Benghazi” released in the 10:00 p.m. hour Washington, D.C. time on the day of the attack. Ventrell repeated the same empty claims as Carney that the ARB has thoroughly reviewed the issue:
Google Warns That Drudge Report And Infowars Are Malware
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 7, 2013
Editor’s note: Infowars.com’s IT department has scanned our system and reports that we do not carry content from um.eqads.com as Google tells visitors to the site.
How best to scare people away from alternative media? Make them think Drudge Report and Infowars.com web pages contain malicious software.
In April, White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer tried to steer traffic away from the Drudge Report. His effort directed more traffic to the website.
During a news conference last year, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney instructed a reporter to “be mindful of your sources” when asked about the Drudge Report and a rumor about Mitt Romney.
More traffic flowed to Drudge.
Despite the best efforts of Obamaites and Democrats to diss Drudge and put a dent in the web site’s popularity, millions of folks peruse the site daily.
Back in March of 2010, the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works sent out an email stating Drudge’s website was “responsible for the many viruses popping up throughout the Senate,” according to a CNet report.
No appreciable drop in viewership ensued.
Ditto Infowars.com. In recent weeks, a large number of critics led by spurious reports posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website and elsewhere have posted stories accusing Alex Jones and Infowars.com of fomenting some kind of rightwing terror campaign and distributing baseless conspiracy theories.
No matter. Following the attack, millions of people flocked to the website to get the other side of the story on everything from Sandy Hook to the Boston bombings.
Now Google Chrome tags Infowars.com as a malware distributor.
It is a tactic destined to failure.
The CNet article posted on March 9, 2010 reported that the malware allegedly distributed by the Drudge Report actually came from DoubleClick, a subsidiary of Google which develops and provides internet ad serving services. It serves customers like Microsoft, General Motors, Coca-Cola, Motorola, Apple Inc., Visa USA, Nike and dozen of others.
So, when are we going to hear that large transnational corporations are purveyors of malware?
Is it possible Google will advise web travelers to avoid their websites?
Google Engaged in Massive Data Theft
Google should take a look at its own track record before trying to frighten off visitors to Infowars.com and Drudge.
In 2012, a Federal Communications Commission document disclosed that Google’s Street View – an effort to photograph streets around the world – deliberately collected massive amounts of Wi-Fi payload data and the information was illegally stored at an Oregon Storage facility. Google attempted to hide the theft from the public.
The pilfered data includes telephone numbers, URLs, passwords, email, text messages, medical records, video and audio files, according to Wired.
The government then said the transnational communications corporation would not be criminally charged with wiretapping, in essence giving Google free reign to engage in additional theft.
Moreover, the government complied with a Google request to redact portions of the FCC document.
Google shares a cozy relationship with the intelligence community. In 2011, Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group, asked the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, to investigate Google’s relationship with the NSA and other government agencies.
“The group asked Issa to investigate contracts at several U.S. agencies for Google technology and services, the ‘secretive’ relationship between Google and the U.S. National Security Agency, and the company’s use of a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration airfield in California,” writes Grant Gross for PCWorld.
“Federal agencies have also taken ‘insufficient’ action in response to revelations last year that Google Street View cars were collecting data from open Wi-Fi connections they passed, Consumer Watchdog said in the letter.”
In 2010, it was reported that Google and the CIA jointly backed a company engaged in real time surveillance of the web. The company, Recorded Future, “scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come,” writes Noah Shachtman.
Infowars.com
May 7, 2013
Editor’s note: Infowars.com’s IT department has scanned our system and reports that we do not carry content from um.eqads.com as Google tells visitors to the site.
How best to scare people away from alternative media? Make them think Drudge Report and Infowars.com web pages contain malicious software.
In April, White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer tried to steer traffic away from the Drudge Report. His effort directed more traffic to the website.
During a news conference last year, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney instructed a reporter to “be mindful of your sources” when asked about the Drudge Report and a rumor about Mitt Romney.
More traffic flowed to Drudge.
Despite the best efforts of Obamaites and Democrats to diss Drudge and put a dent in the web site’s popularity, millions of folks peruse the site daily.
Back in March of 2010, the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works sent out an email stating Drudge’s website was “responsible for the many viruses popping up throughout the Senate,” according to a CNet report.
No appreciable drop in viewership ensued.
Ditto Infowars.com. In recent weeks, a large number of critics led by spurious reports posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website and elsewhere have posted stories accusing Alex Jones and Infowars.com of fomenting some kind of rightwing terror campaign and distributing baseless conspiracy theories.
No matter. Following the attack, millions of people flocked to the website to get the other side of the story on everything from Sandy Hook to the Boston bombings.
Now Google Chrome tags Infowars.com as a malware distributor.
It is a tactic destined to failure.
The CNet article posted on March 9, 2010 reported that the malware allegedly distributed by the Drudge Report actually came from DoubleClick, a subsidiary of Google which develops and provides internet ad serving services. It serves customers like Microsoft, General Motors, Coca-Cola, Motorola, Apple Inc., Visa USA, Nike and dozen of others.
So, when are we going to hear that large transnational corporations are purveyors of malware?
Is it possible Google will advise web travelers to avoid their websites?
Google Engaged in Massive Data Theft
Google should take a look at its own track record before trying to frighten off visitors to Infowars.com and Drudge.
In 2012, a Federal Communications Commission document disclosed that Google’s Street View – an effort to photograph streets around the world – deliberately collected massive amounts of Wi-Fi payload data and the information was illegally stored at an Oregon Storage facility. Google attempted to hide the theft from the public.
The pilfered data includes telephone numbers, URLs, passwords, email, text messages, medical records, video and audio files, according to Wired.
The government then said the transnational communications corporation would not be criminally charged with wiretapping, in essence giving Google free reign to engage in additional theft.
Moreover, the government complied with a Google request to redact portions of the FCC document.
Google shares a cozy relationship with the intelligence community. In 2011, Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group, asked the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, to investigate Google’s relationship with the NSA and other government agencies.
“The group asked Issa to investigate contracts at several U.S. agencies for Google technology and services, the ‘secretive’ relationship between Google and the U.S. National Security Agency, and the company’s use of a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration airfield in California,” writes Grant Gross for PCWorld.
“Federal agencies have also taken ‘insufficient’ action in response to revelations last year that Google Street View cars were collecting data from open Wi-Fi connections they passed, Consumer Watchdog said in the letter.”
In 2010, it was reported that Google and the CIA jointly backed a company engaged in real time surveillance of the web. The company, Recorded Future, “scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come,” writes Noah Shachtman.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Benghazi Whistleblowers Are Talking To "House Oversight Committee"
posted at 8:31 am on April 18, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
CBS News has learned that multiple new whistleblowers are privately speaking to investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya.What stories do these new witnesses have to tell? Apparently nothing too complimentary. Otherwise, Oversight Chair Darrell Issa probably wouldn’t need to remind the CIA to refrain from retaliation against these whistleblowers — or warn the agency to get their lawyers on standby (via Instapundit):
The nature of the communications with the whistleblowers and their identities are not being made public at this time. But in response, the Oversight Committee yesterday sent letters to the three federal agencies involved: the CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department.
“During the course of the investigation, numerous individuals have approached the committee with information related to the attack,” wrote Issa in the letters, which were obtained by The Hill.Ever since the initial probe stalled a few months ago, many have wondered why the administration hasn’t made the survivors of that night available to House investigators. Some have also wondered why those survivors haven’t come forward on their own, but if they still work in intelligence agencies, they may not have been allowed to do so. These new whistleblowers may or may not be the Benghazi survivors, but clearly they’re coming from within the intel community — and Issa’s letter strongly suggest that they are pointing fingers upstairs.
He asked agencies to provide details on how to grant outside attorneys the security clearances necessary for them to adequately represent employees discussing classified matters with congressional investigators.
“Some witnesses may be required to retain personal counsel to represent them before the committee and in the event the agency subsequently retaliates against them for cooperating with the committee’s investigation,” he said.
“Additional witnesses may be compelled by subpoena to give testimony to the committee and can be reasonably expected to retain personal counsel at that time.”
Four Americans were killed in that attack, and the US was forced to publicly retreat from an area we had claimed to have help liberate and safeguard. That defeat raises a lot of questions about US actions before, during, and after the attack on the consulate, and perhaps some of those questions will finally get answered in the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)