Why did DOJ need the AP phone records?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05...seizure-of-ap-phone-records-deeply-troubling/

I cannot find what exactly the DOJ used these phone records for. Did they ever find the perpetrator to this dangerous, life-threatening leak? I do understand that regardless, they did so illegally and didn't even follow their own protocol. That's all people are talking about currently. And that's fine, but I want to know what purpose did it serve and what became of it. Or worse....did they use the "excuse" of trying to find the leak and gather these phone records for more sinister use? In other words: What was the fruit of their labor on this one?

 

That's what the AP STILL wants to know...

 

Wasn't John McCain screaming for them to investigate the leaks? Then they investigated the leaks and now who is upset about it? John McCain again. Odd.

 

I'm no John McCain fan, but its a pretty safe bet he wanted the DOJ to go after the leaks in a legal manner.

 

Gee - imagine that! Who'd a thunk it? Prolly yet another vast rightwing conspiracy going on here.

 

It was legal. They got a judge to OK the search. I'm not saying they should have or that it was right, but it does not appear to be illegal.

 

The simple fact is this: Obama is a totalitarian thug who wants to control everything. He does not care about peoples' rights, and will use various types of thuggery, coercion and whatever else it takes for him to get his way. Rest assured that as far as monitoring phone records, this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

I've been wondering the same thing - the DOJ drops a dragnet the likes of which the AP has never seen before, and it doesn't come up with the identity of the leaker?

I can see why people are smelling a rat here...

 

It was legal?

Not if they misled the judge with erroneous reasons.

It has been posted in here that they were looking for bomb makers. If that is the claim, which does NOT support the fact of such a widespread use of the blank subpoenas, then they are liable for charges of obstruction of justice and abuse of office.

The JD has ADMITTED what they did was wrong. Why can't Obama's supporters accept it when they admit mistakes? Have you all become like him? Or is he the the president because that avistic self denial is part of the American gene pool?

FFS, stop treating this rock star like he's a saint...at the end of the day he is a politician....and when has the United States EVER had a perfect president?

 

Well, I guess we will find out. I tend not to comment directly on "scandals" until the facts are known.

You will have to ask an Obama supporter. I have no idea.

 

With the current batch of intrusi-thusiasts running things, plus the misfortune laden trend of more and more morons voting into power gangs of villains, thieves and scoundrels, I'd say there's whole lot more "legal" intrusiveness coming our way.

 

There is a whole bunch already here.

 

Here's the question that occured to me:

What do you think of the idea that Holder recused himself from a leak investigation so he wouldn't be able to tell anybody that there WAS an investigation??? In order to recuse himself he has to know about it in the first place.........
So who do you think ordered his "recusal"???
Who else knew and "recused" themselves?
Were they just trying to find the reporter who passed on the information so they could stop them from publishing. ala Ron Brown???

 

Mole hunt.

You want to find a mole, check YOUR phone records, not those belonging to the press. The press has a long history of protecting sources from the government regarding it's primary charge... which has nothing to do with Angelina Jolie's tits... it is the watchdog over the government.

Even Hoover never did anything this outreagous.

 

So.....what was the result of their investigation? Was that ever printed anywhere?

 

So they typically "print" the results of DoJ investigations? Where would one find such a document?

 

Holder said he recused himself because he could have been the leaker. WTF? So, you don't appoint your subordinate, you appoint and independent entity if you think the leak could have come from your office.

 

I'm not so sure. Per Judge Napolitano...

Napolitano was not convinced, calling Justice’s actions a “profound and direct assault on the First Amendment.” He explained to Fox host Megyn Kelly that the feds have three different methods to legally seize documents from an outlet like the Associated Press: 1. “Grand jury subpoena, in which case the U.S. attorney has to tell the person, ‘We are going for your records.’” 2. “Go to a judge and present evidence of probable cause of crime to get a search warrant.” 3. “Obtain a national security letter, in which a federal agent writes a search warrant authorizing another federal agent to get the documents under the PATRIOT Act.”

The third option, Napolitano added, “is unconstitutional, but it is the law.” But as the judge sees it, the only crime that’s been identified by Holder thus far was the “crime of leaking,” which does not constitute a national security threat.

And so without following any of the three steps to legally obtaining documents under federal law, Napolitano told Kelly, the seizure “was absolutely done improperly and it violated most the core protected rights under the Constitution: freedom of speech.”
Napolitano was not convinced, calling Justice’s actions a “profound and direct assault on the First Amendment.” He explained to Fox host Megyn Kelly that the feds have three different methods to legally seize documents from an outlet like the Associated Press: 1. “Grand jury subpoena, in which case the U.S. attorney has to tell the person, ‘We are going for your records.’” 2. “Go to a judge and present evidence of probable cause of crime to get a search warrant.” 3. “Obtain a national security letter, in which a federal agent writes a search warrant authorizing another federal agent to get the documents under the PATRIOT Act.”

The third option, Napolitano added, “is unconstitutional, but it is the law.” But as the judge sees it, the only crime that’s been identified by Holder thus far was the “crime of leaking,” which does not constitute a national security threat.

And so without following any of the three steps to legally obtaining documents under federal law, Napolitano told Kelly, the seizure “was absolutely done improperly and it violated most the core protected rights under the Constitution: freedom of speech.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/judge-na...ofound-and-direct-assault-on-first-amendment/

 

No, you ask an opposition leader from the Senate to appoint an investigator. If you are honest enough.

 

I don't know...I'm asking. Clearly as defined by the "?" There are likely two possibilities. Either the reason you got the phone records is to find the leak, or it's not. If it is the latter, it is logical to conclude the reason is sinister since you are breaking protocol/laws for it. Maybe its the former, and I ask if the leak was found. I guess there is another possibility that Holder needed the phone records to see if his wife was cheating on him with the entire AP. I don't think it's likely though, but who knows.

 

It wasn't illegal.

 

By alerting the press to DOJ reach into communications, all the press is now screwed with their confidential sources. People will stop talking. What serves a corrupt administration better? What thwarts investigations better?

 

That's what I'm thinking---that they used the intelligence leak to take a look at the AP reporters phone records. Remember the leak was something that appeared to help the president in an election year. Do we really believe that had those records shown that someone inside Obama's circle leaked it, that they would want to make it known???

You asked some very relevant questions....and it's questions that need to be asked of the Obama administration officials.....while they are under oath.

 

That's what we're asking. The Obama administration does an "unprecedented" sweep of the AP's phone records, including many reporters and at least one Editor over a TWO month period.....and we're never going to know what they found???? Did they find the leaker.....or not?