[$tinkle]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/14/holder-carney-under-attack-as-scandal-gate-widens.html

benghazi & IRS targeting t-baggers? both mildly amusing, but won't get much coverage.

but see now, you poked the AP bear.

 

[Pesqueeb]

1: Benghazi; no one gives a fvck. Seriously, faux news hyperbole meant to try and cut off Hillary at the pass on the way to 2016.
2: T-baggers and the IRS; Another making hay non-troversy.
Edit: Here's another
3: AP blanket seizure of press records; Some Orwelian BS right here. Along with warrant-less wire tapping and extrajudicial killings. It should be looked into.

 

[chillindrdude]

if the subpoenas were legally obtained. and the rationale was release of classified info. i have no big beef with that. seems like the scope was limited (2-3 months of monitoring, and involved pertinent AP staff at select locations where the leak likely occurred).

it wasn't like it was all expansive and done so on a whim.

the whole argument by the AP, "well, we should have been told of the subpoena before execution" doesn't hold water with me. like a news conglomerate would have allowed (and turned over) possible self-incriminating evidence to the feds is laughable.

it's like the police telling a suspected murderer, "hey we're gonna search your house at x time for evidence". then allowing said murderer to go home, deep clean with clorox, and bury the weapon prior to the execution of the search warrant.

in this current environment of journalistic "one-ups-manship" and cut-throat efforts to "outscoop" the competition, i'm not surprised about them throwing "national security" to the wind and claiming freedom of the press.

go fcuk yourselves AP and media douchers. you're less about journalism and facts nowadays and more about sensationalism to boost ratings or circulation. EATADIK.

 

[Pesqueeb]

it wasn't like it was all expansive and done so on a whim.

Bullsh*t.

7 years worth isn't expansive?

Even if you take the feds word at "just" several months worth, and "only" 100 or so people, that's hardly a narrow scope with which to pursue what ever witch hunt the feds are on.

The Obama administration has indicted six current and former officials under the Espionage Act, which had previously been used only three times since it was enacted in 1917. One, a former C.I.A. officer, pleaded guilty under another law for revealing the name of an agent who participated in the torture of a terrorist suspect. Meanwhile, President Obama decided not to investigate, much less prosecute, anyone who actually did the torturing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html?ref=politics&_r=1&

Where not talking about Angelina's boobs here.

 

[Pesqueeb]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/14/justice-department-ap-phone-records-whistleblowers

The legality of the DOJ's actions is impossible to assess because it is not even known what legal authority it claims nor the legal process it invoked to obtain these records. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the DOJ's power to obtain phone records is, as I've detailed many times, dangerously broad. It often has the power to obtain those records without the person's knowledge (as happened here) and for a wildly broad scope of time (as also happened here). There are numerous instruments that have been vested in the DOJ to obtain phone records, many of which do not require court approval, including administrative subpoenas and "national security letters" (issued without judicial review); indeed, the Obama DOJ has previously claimed it has the power to obtain journalists' phone records without subpoeans using NSLs, and in its relentless pursuit to learn the identity of the source for one of New York Times' James Risen's stories, the Obama DOJ has actually claimed that journalists have no shield protections whatsoever in the national security context. It's also quite possible that they obtained the records through a Grand Jury subpoena, as part of yet another criminal investigation to uncover and punish leakers.

None of those processes for obtaining these invasive records requires a demonstration of probable cause or anything close to it. Instead, the DOJ must simply assert that the records "relate to" a pending investigation: a standard so broad that virtually every DOJ desire will fulfill it. Even if a court were involved in the acquisition of these records - and that's unlikely here - it typically does little more than act as rubber-stamping functionary, just as it does when secretly approving the DOJ's requests for FISA warrants. This is what is reaped from continuously vesting the US government with greater and greater surveillance powers in the name of Terrorism and other fears.

What makes the DOJ's actions so stunning here is its breadth. It's the opposite of a narrowly tailored and limited scope. It's a massive, sweeping, boundless invasion which enables the US government to learn the identity of every person whom multiple AP journalists and editors have called for a two-month period. Some of the AP journalists involved in the Yemen/CIA story and whose phone records were presumably obtained - including Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo - are among the nation's best and most serious investigative journalists; those two won the Pulitzer Prize last year for their superb work exposing the NYPD's surveillance program aimed at American Muslim communities. For the DOJ to obtain all of their phone records and those of their editors for a period of two months is just staggering.

 

[$tinkle]

npr just jumped the shark:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

 

[chillindrdude]

tin foil hattery.

think about it, say a main desk (or company cell) is used...by multiple people, is that counted as multiple intrusions? IF (big if) they listen to each, and a bunch was just fluff and were pizza orders. those avenues of inquiry were likely dropped and those that were incriminating were focused and expanded on.

things nowadays are very different than 1917....think of how easy it is to communicate, travel, commit heinous acts globally. my thoughts about torture is more pragmatic, but likely categorized as evil by liberals and wussy by conservatives. but if the CIA was operating within guidelines, then big f-ing whup about prosecuting the actual "torturer" (in your eyes). i am all for prosecuting the asshole for outting the agents involved however.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well, good luck with that moral compass.

 

[Pesqueeb]

npr just jumped the shark:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

LOL wut?

"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously.

 

[chillindrdude]

easy for folks to render who is moral, immoral from afar. all is not black and white.

if waterboarding a scumbag terrorist would give me actionable intel to save my son/daughter/wife, i'd do it.

but meh, you keep thinking i'm immoral, it's cool.

 

[$tinkle]

if waterboarding a scumbag terrorist would give me actionable intel to save my son/daughter/wife, i'd do it.

while i would tend to agree w/ this, is this what's on the table here? don't think any lives were lost due to bungling of actionable intel.

that's the 3rd door down the hall on your right [*far* right, in fact], where they're having q&a about a little dustup in libya

 

[stevew]

the first head on a stick.

 

[$tinkle]

"The misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it and I am angry about it," the president said in a brief prepared statement. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency—but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."

i'm not so sure i agree w/ him on this. maybe i'm being a little naive, but if there's legitimate reasons to call into question an entity's qualification for 501(c)4 status, then dig, dig, dig. i don't want to see tax deductible ducats going to *any* primarily political mouthpiece.

any.

 

[the law]

"The misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it and I am angry about it," the president said in a brief prepared statement. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency—but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."

i'm not so sure i agree w/ him on this. maybe i'm being a little naive, but if there's legitimate reasons to call into question an entity's qualification for 501(c)4 status, then dig, dig, dig. i don't want to see tax deductible ducats going to *any* primarily political mouthpiece.

any.

I think the problem is that the IRS only did so selectively against presumed conservative entities and perhaps even without any real suspicion.

 

[Pesqueeb]

easy for folks to render who is moral, immoral from afar. all is not black and white.

if waterboarding a scumbag terrorist would give me actionable intel to save my son/daughter/wife, i'd do it.

but meh, you keep thinking i'm immoral, it's cool.

Riiiggghhhhhttttt. Do as we say, not as we do. Hey you other countries, why are you intimidating your Press, why are you spying on your own citizens, why are you imprisoning and executing people without due process? Were the greatest country in the world! Just never mind what we do behind closed doors or we'll whip the sh*t out of you with Freedom®!!!!!!

But it's okay if it protects my family and if we do it. We're the good guys! If god be with us, who can be against us? Some where out there is an "other", and the "other" is bad, scary and evil.



Boo!


America is the hypocritical school yard bully. Pushing everyone around, demanding they act a certain way when we don't have the courage to do it ourselves, and then we wonder why nobody want's to be our friend.

"The misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it and I am angry about it," the president said in a brief prepared statement. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency—but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."

i'm not so sure i agree w/ him on this. maybe i'm being a little naive, but if there's legitimate reasons to call into question an entity's qualification for 501(c)4 status, then dig, dig, dig. i don't want to see tax deductible ducats going to *any* primarily political mouthpiece.

any.

Can we start with churches?

 

[Pesqueeb]

I think the problem is that the IRS only did so selectively against presumed conservative entities and perhaps even without any real suspicion.

Thats not true though.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-14/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row-taxes

 

[$tinkle]

Can we start with churches?

why do you have a raging boner against subsidizing pedophilia?

 

[$tinkle]

the first head on a stick.

i'll yin your yang

 

[$tinkle]

old & busted: "humpty dumpty was pushed"
new hotness: "steven miller was thrown under the choom wagon"

 

[$tinkle]

left-leaning politico wades into the ankle-deep crimson tide: President Obama tries to stop the bleeding

Though Obama doesn’t have direct links to the IRS issue, observers think he did the right thing in taking charge and demanding Miller’s resignation. “Clearly the president of the United States didn’t know about what was happening in low-level bureaucracies, but he’s still the boss of government,” Prince said. “He had to say ‘I care, I’m angry.’”

he'd be wise to exercise temperance; any expression of anger could get him on a tbagger-like watchlist.

 

[Pesqueeb]

left-leaning politico wades into the ankle-deep crimson tide: President Obama tries to stop the bleedinghe'd be wise to exercise temperance; any expression of anger could get him on a tbagger-like watchlist.

Honestly, I don't think he gets angry enough. Of course, if he did, white people would get all scared about the "angry black man".

 

[Beef Supreme]

left-leaning politico

 

[the law]

Thats not true though.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-14/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row-taxes

I believe that the words that were used to target non-profit applications were selected so that they would identify primarily conservative applicants. For example, there are probably not too many liberal organizations that chose to identify themselves as tea party organizations. However, the net that was cast (i.e. organizations using terms constitution) was broad enough to also capture some liberal organizations. If my understanding is correct, then it was still a targeted attempt to harass conservative groups which seems inappropriate (although not entirely shocking) to me.

 

[$tinkle]

Honestly, I don't think he gets angry enough. Of course, if he did, white people would get all scared about the "angry black man".

black/white lady

Yet Mr. Obama also expresses exasperation. In private, he has talked longingly of "going Bulworth," a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought. While Mr. Beatty's character had neither the power nor the platform of a president, the metaphor highlights Mr. Obama's desire to be liberated from what he sees as the hindrances on him.
"Probably every president says that from time to time," said David Axelrod, another longtime adviser who has heard Mr. Obama's movie-inspired aspiration. "It's probably cathartic just to say it. But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you're saying."

just slightly less uncomfortable than the rap scene hudder:

 

[Pesqueeb]

Can we start with churches?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/16/the-other-irs-scandal/

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/16/the-other-irs-scandal/

king for a day says: for the duration the sign was up, those offerings may not be tax-deductible.

done & done.

 

[Pesqueeb]

OUTRAGE!!



Edit: Oops.

 

[$tinkle]

wrt IRS "targeting", this is the one time you'd think anti-gov't types would round the corner b/c finally the gov't is being smarter by looking into particular affiliations & suspicions of potential fiscal abuse of tax loopholes.

le sigh

 

[Pesqueeb]

So......Profiling is bad now?

 

[$tinkle]

profiling is something all of us do in nearly every interaction every day; deliberately for the first time in a new environment, and reinforced in subsequent interactions. so as long as profiling is initiated equitably, that should set a healthy tone.

my new neighborhood has a lot more old farts w/ grown & gone kids, so i feel this new neighborhood has lower risk of property crime. and yesterday afternoon, i had some tatted up mates over, whose vehicles have a blue book value of $3k total, so i have to expect profiling cuts both ways.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality

 

[$tinkle]

scooter libby sees what obama did there

 

[Pesqueeb]

scooter libby sees what obama did there

Far as I know even the Bush administration didn't try to prosecute Robert Novak or "wire tap" the Washington Post.

 

[dante]

profiling is something all of us do in nearly every interaction every day; deliberately for the first time in a new environment, and reinforced in subsequent interactions. so as long as profiling is initiated equitably, that should set a healthy tone.

my new neighborhood has a lot more old farts w/ grown & gone kids, so i feel this new neighborhood has lower risk of property crime. and yesterday afternoon, i had some tatted up mates over, whose vehicles have a blue book value of $3k total, so i have to expect profiling cuts both ways.

The tax agency for the US is giving special scrutiny to "anti-tax" organizations??!? What next, the CIA focuses it's attention on "anti-US" terrorist groups?





(apologies if posted previously, looked and I couldn't find it)

 

[$tinkle]

speaking of profiling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

#enemiesList

 

[Pesqueeb]

Related.