Justice Department & AP Phone Records?

Maybe you and Obama could find out together about these latest abuses since AG Eric Holder tries to keep the POTUS in the dark. :rofllol


Our president, on top of the Trayvon Martin story but hasn't had time to keep up on IRS abuses.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Are you really trying to support those who unlawfully leak classified information that leads to the death and endangerment of American citizens, that aids and abet terrorist actions against Americ, those who the Justice Department were trying to identify through lawful means?

Well... Obviously the DOJ and the CIA had no problem with the information going public... they were going to announce the terror plot themselves... and were negotiating with AP as to how long BEFORE the WH announcement that the AP could go public...

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday…

Now, some members of Congress and media advocates are questioning why the administration viewed the leak that led to the May 7 AP story as so grave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

Am I understanding that correctly? The CIA went on bargaining with the AP after the security worries had evaporated, purely in the interest of preventing the administration from being scooped on its glorious “plot foiled” announcement the next day? (John Brennan ended up on “Good Morning, America” the next morning to crow about the intel victory.) And when the AP didn’t comply — even though it had been, apparently, entirely cooperative up to that point — the DOJ went hunting for its phone records without so much as a polite request first? Also, who was the “administration official” in the White House that couldn’t wait more than five whole minutes after the news broke for Team Obama to take credit, six months out from an election?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/w ... -publicly/

None of the information in this "leak" would lead "to the death and endangerment of American citizens" or " aids and abet terrorist actions against America." AP waited until after the CIA signed off on the story... Obama had another one of his hissy-fits cause he didn't get his way.

So caring more about showing the administration in a positive light? Understand, this is the way politics is played right now. Screw everybody else, we want to look good!

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Are you really trying to support those who unlawfully leak classified information that leads to the death and endangerment of American citizens, that aids and abet terrorist actions against Americ, those who the Justice Department were trying to identify through lawful means?

Well... Obviously the DOJ and the CIA had no problem with the information going public... they were going to announce the terror plot themselves... and were negotiating with AP as to how long BEFORE the WH announcement that the AP could go public...

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday…

Now, some members of Congress and media advocates are questioning why the administration viewed the leak that led to the May 7 AP story as so grave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

Am I understanding that correctly? The CIA went on bargaining with the AP after the security worries had evaporated, purely in the interest of preventing the administration from being scooped on its glorious “plot foiled” announcement the next day? (John Brennan ended up on “Good Morning, America” the next morning to crow about the intel victory.) And when the AP didn’t comply — even though it had been, apparently, entirely cooperative up to that point — the DOJ went hunting for its phone records without so much as a polite request first? Also, who was the “administration official” in the White House that couldn’t wait more than five whole minutes after the news broke for Team Obama to take credit, six months out from an election?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/w ... -publicly/

None of the information in this "leak" would lead "to the death and endangerment of American citizens" or " aids and abet terrorist actions against America." AP waited until after the CIA signed off on the story... Obama had another one of his hissy-fits cause he didn't get his way.

Which of course you have misrepresented by selectively editing. The linked story actually details how the press conference was scheduled not to take credit for the foiled plot but to perform triage from the damage from the AP story.
But former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor, recalling the discussion in the administration last year, said officials were simply realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement. The CIA was trying to get its operatives to safety before classified information was published.

“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Are you really trying to support those who unlawfully leak classified information that leads to the death and endangerment of American citizens, that aids and abet terrorist actions against Americ, those who the Justice Department were trying to identify through lawful means?

Well... Obviously the DOJ and the CIA had no problem with the information going public... they were going to announce the terror plot themselves... and were negotiating with AP as to how long BEFORE the WH announcement that the AP could go public...

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday…

Now, some members of Congress and media advocates are questioning why the administration viewed the leak that led to the May 7 AP story as so grave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

Am I understanding that correctly? The CIA went on bargaining with the AP after the security worries had evaporated, purely in the interest of preventing the administration from being scooped on its glorious “plot foiled” announcement the next day? (John Brennan ended up on “Good Morning, America” the next morning to crow about the intel victory.) And when the AP didn’t comply — even though it had been, apparently, entirely cooperative up to that point — the DOJ went hunting for its phone records without so much as a polite request first? Also, who was the “administration official” in the White House that couldn’t wait more than five whole minutes after the news broke for Team Obama to take credit, six months out from an election?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/w ... -publicly/

None of the information in this "leak" would lead "to the death and endangerment of American citizens" or " aids and abet terrorist actions against America." AP waited until after the CIA signed off on the story... Obama had another one of his hissy-fits cause he didn't get his way.

Which of course you have misrepresented by selectively editing. The linked story actually details how the press conference was scheduled not to take credit for the foiled plot but to perform triage from the damage from the AP story.
But former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor, recalling the discussion in the administration last year, said officials were simply realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement. The CIA was trying to get its operatives to safety before classified information was published.

“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

Read this line very slowly and carefully...

"The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counter-terrorism operation that Tuesday…"

There... I knew you could... that's a good doggy.

...but my talking points didn't mention that...could they have been biased and slanted?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Are you really trying to support those who unlawfully leak classified information that leads to the death and endangerment of American citizens, that aids and abet terrorist actions against Americ, those who the Justice Department were trying to identify through lawful means?

Well... Obviously the DOJ and the CIA had no problem with the information going public... they were going to announce the terror plot themselves... and were negotiating with AP as to how long BEFORE the WH announcement that the AP could go public...

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday…

Now, some members of Congress and media advocates are questioning why the administration viewed the leak that led to the May 7 AP story as so grave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

Am I understanding that correctly? The CIA went on bargaining with the AP after the security worries had evaporated, purely in the interest of preventing the administration from being scooped on its glorious “plot foiled” announcement the next day? (John Brennan ended up on “Good Morning, America” the next morning to crow about the intel victory.) And when the AP didn’t comply — even though it had been, apparently, entirely cooperative up to that point — the DOJ went hunting for its phone records without so much as a polite request first? Also, who was the “administration official” in the White House that couldn’t wait more than five whole minutes after the news broke for Team Obama to take credit, six months out from an election?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/w ... -publicly/

None of the information in this "leak" would lead "to the death and endangerment of American citizens" or " aids and abet terrorist actions against America." AP waited until after the CIA signed off on the story... Obama had another one of his hissy-fits cause he didn't get his way.

Which of course you have misrepresented by selectively editing. The linked story actually details how the press conference was scheduled not to take credit for the foiled plot but to perform triage from the damage from the AP story.
But former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor, recalling the discussion in the administration last year, said officials were simply realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement. The CIA was trying to get its operatives to safety before classified information was published.

“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

Read this line very slowly and carefully...

"The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counter-terrorism operation that Tuesday…"

There... I knew you could... that's a good doggy.

Read this line very slowly and carefully . . . (I am typing as slow as I can to help you)


“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

It sure doesn't sound like your initial story that the leaks were going to kill Americans. Sort of like how outing Valerie Plame was the biggest non-story ever.

Something the Dog Said wrote: “There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

"[O]ffer context for other reporters"? There is some irony there, considering the Benghazi thing and the president's, Susan Rice's, Clinton's, and others "context" about a demonstration about some unknown and unseen anti-Mohammad movie.

Liberal lap Dog... that's what Vietor is. Convenient to say that... other people recollect differently. Did I say Dog... I made a funny (and the obligatory Lady Jazzer tag)... wait for it... tata... :rofllol