Chris Hayes: There must be DOJ search warrants aimed at journalists who reported pro-Obama leaks too, right?

posted at 4:41 pm on May 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

You think? You think the reason there’s been conspicuously little news about the DOJ investigating the NYT for revealing Obama’s glorious Stuxnet success (which might not have been so glorious in hindsight) or for reminding voters a few months before the election that he’s liquidated an awful lot of jihadis is because … those warrants simply haven’t been disclosed yet? Here’s a choice excerpt from the Times’s big “kill list” expose last May:

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

That’s more than 30 different national-security officials implicated in the possible disclosure of classified information related to Obama’s personal management of blasting terrorists into a thin mist. And yet, unless I missed something, not a single warrant or subpoena related to any of them has come to light in the year since that story ran. Odd, no? Occam’s razor: If there were warrants related to some supposed “kill list” leak investigation out there, wouldn’t O have sought to release one or more of them over the past few weeks to prove his evenhandedness in sniffing out unauthorized intelligence disclosures? It’d be powerful proof that not even the president’s inner circle is above the law to see a document signed by Eric Holder demanding personal communications from John Brennan or Tom Donilon on suspicion of blabbing to the media about something that helped Obama a lot politically. Surely Brennan was investigated and then cleared of wrongdoing before he was promoted to CIA chief. And yet … no warrants have materialized. Anyone else have a crazy theory as to why there are no documents in the news related to investigating leaks that helped Obama?

We’ve reached an interesting juncture in this scandal process if the big defense of Obama and Holder on the left’s news network of choice is that they’re probably/hopefully being just as aggressive in spying on friendly media too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Thoughtful” and “liberal” are impossible to put to together.

That’s like saying Mars is a red hamster.

Liam on May 30, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Has anyone seen my gerbil?

acyl72 on May 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Is his name “Mars” by any chance?

JusDreamin on May 30, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Bob Maddow’s little sister, Christine, isn’t very bright.

M240H on May 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Political sabotage

Schadenfreude on May 30, 2013 at 7:27 PM

USA Today

Schadenfreude on May 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Occam’s razor: If there were warrants related to some supposed “kill list” leak investigation out there, wouldn’t O have sought to release one or more of them over the past few weeks to prove his evenhandedness in sniffing out unauthorized intelligence disclosures?

Well, let’s keep in mind that even if these investigations happened, Obama wouldn’t know about them unless they were reported by WaPo or the NYT. So, you know.

BKeyser on May 30, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Well, let’s keep in mind that even if these investigations happened, Obama wouldn’t know about them unless they were reported by WaPo or the NYT. So, you know.

BKeyser on May 30, 2013 at 7:36 PM

And Holder wouldn’t know about them either although his hand would since his signature would be on the documents authorizing them… his hand is, apparently, an independent entity just coincidentally attached to his body.

ajacksonian on May 30, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Well, thank you, Miss Hayes! So good of you to be helpful to Ø by advancing a “shaft liberals, too!” corollary. I’m sure he will have choice words for you, in case he ever notices you.

ExpressoBold on May 30, 2013 at 7:57 PM

He goes on to say that “the real problem is it’s not against the law to leak classified information.” Which is kinda sorta true — it’s against the law to leak information that’s injurious to national defense, which is a subset of classified information and which Holder used to justify his snooping on James Rosen.

James Rosen didn’t ‘leak’ ANYTHING. He was never in a position to ‘leak’ ANYTHING. The ‘leak’ came from someone in government that had access to classified information.

A journalist CANNOT ‘leak’ classified information. He can only report information given to him. He or she is NOT an AUTHORISED INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE LAW. Furthermore, the First Amendment covers the PRESS, not the individual employed by the Federal government, who has signed a confidentiality agreement, acknowledgement that release of Classified X is a crime (which Bradley Manning DID on numerous occasions), or is an authorised individual under the law.

18 USC § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) likewise requires intent or reason to believe language, but it applies to authorised individuals…

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

(a)-(c) require intent to injure and/or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. The government must prove mens rea and there is NO evidence that Rosen intended to injure or had reason to believe that reporting that North Korea will act like a spoiled-rotten child if it doesn’t get its way isn’t exactly releasing the plans of nuclear weapons. I don’t work for the government or have access to classified information and I could have told you the same thing. The NorKs have been behaving predictably since the 1990s.

18 USC § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

Rosen did not ‘publish’ any classified information. He reported it and is, thereby, covered by the First Amendment.

Nor did Fox’s publication violate the law. In New York Times Co. v United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Supreme Court upheld the right of the press to publish the classified documents known as the Pentagon Papers.

The Court held that the ONLY way the government can preemptively prevent the publication of classified information is to show cause before a court of competent jurisdiction that the publication would cause a ‘grave and irreparable’ danger to the United States. For example, could the government have obtained a court order to restrain the New York Times from releasing nuclear weapons information obtained from the Rosenbergs prior to publication? More than likely. Could the government have obtained a court order to preemptively stop Rosen from reporting on North Korea? Highly, highly unlikely.

Is he saying that it should be illegal to leak all manner of classified info, whether dangerous or not?

It’s weird to see Leftists argue that Daniel Ellsberg should have been convicted and jailed for giving the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and Senator Mike Gravel, who then read them on the floor of the Senate which made their disclosure bulletproof under the Speech & Debate Clause. Also, they are arguing that Teddy Kennedy and his staff should have been convicted of aiding and abetting the gathering and publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Resist We Much on May 30, 2013 at 8:05 PM

I think he is Maddow..in drag.

CW on May 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Resist We Much on May 30, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Wow I’m in love, no one tell my wife.

Seriously RWM you never fail to impress. I knew the classified information but not the legal info. You summarized it quite nicely for us. Thanks for the continuing education.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 8:20 PM

… those warrants simply haven’t been disclosed yet?

If that’s true, it’s only because they’re busy writing, back-dating, and printing them now.

Midas on May 30, 2013 at 8:48 PM

I’m sure those pro-Obama persecutions will be disclosed soon Chris. Advise: Hold Breath
I believe they’re on the shedule. Right before the butt monkeys. Just…hold…breath.

onomo on May 30, 2013 at 9:11 PM

There must have been thousands of rifles smuggled into the hands of law-abiding Mexican citizens too, right?

Bruce MacMahon on May 30, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Did he forget the Bronner piece, over the weekend over the Norwegian plot, and other matters including Sanger, ‘what does he read;

narciso on May 30, 2013 at 9:20 PM

MSNBC’s ‘more selective strategy’ is really paying dividends, they forgot the lesson of ‘Sgt Schultz, mine the crazy, not the tedious.

narciso on May 30, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Well, let’s keep in mind that even if these investigations happened, Obama wouldn’t know about them unless they were reported by WaPo or the NYT. So, you know.

BKeyser on May 30, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Indeed.

Seriously RWM you never fail to impress. I knew the classified information but not the legal info. You summarized it quite nicely for us. Thanks for the continuing education.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Ditto.

AesopFan on May 30, 2013 at 9:44 PM

I for one salute Chris Hayes, who has led MSNBC’s spiral downward to the bottom of cable ratings, below even HLN.

Ratings are down over 20% from even the lackluster and cancelled Ed Schultz show, no mean achievement, and the poor lead-in carries over into Maddow’s own tanking ratings.

Nice work, Chris! You go, girl!

Adjoran on May 30, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I for one salute Chris Hayes, who has led MSNBC’s spiral downward to the bottom of cable ratings, below even HLN.

Ratings are down over 20% from even the lackluster and cancelled Ed Schultz show, no mean achievement, and the poor lead-in carries over into Maddow’s own tanking ratings.

Nice work, Chris! You go, girl!

Adjoran on May 30, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Should we let MSNBC know that we are totally thrilled with their historic ratings collapse? It might hurt their feelings…

/sarc

;)

Myron Falwell on May 30, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Joey Goebbels is so green with envy.

jukin3 on May 31, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Only one listen, but that sounded.. utterly naive as hell…OR, like sad but true believerism rather than cynicism or spin. Either academy award winning MSM spin, or ultimate “ya think” dumb ass-ness. Not sure which is more disillusioning…

bigjack on May 31, 2013 at 2:12 AM

I have never seen Chris Hayes before – what an annoying person. Does MSNBC really think anyone will watch these people? If Hot Air and other conservative media didn’t report what they say, no one would hear them.

kmarie on May 31, 2013 at 6:04 AM

This keeps me awake at night….”Has anyone seen Chris and Rach in the same room together, at the same time?”

Horrors……

wolfplus3 on May 31, 2013 at 8:18 AM

I have never seen Chris Hayes before – what an annoying person. Does MSNBC really think anyone will watch these people? If Hot Air and other conservative media didn’t report what they say, no one would hear them.

kmarie on May 31, 2013 at 6:04 AM

You are more right than you know. Of course HA and other sites need content and need to draw traffic but at this point it seems that MSNBC’s primary purpose is to provide a foil for the conservative sites. Since there is no shortage of leftists in and around DC, they will always say and do ridiculous, outrageous things. But are they worth the effort? And aren’t we unwittingly giving them a much wider audience?

The intelligence of the average American has been systematically blunted by public ‘education’ but they can still detect a useless house organ when they see one which explains MSNBC ratings (statistically, 956 households in a city of 500,000).

As it is with the trollcots on this site, it’s hard to have long-term discipline in ignoring what I call the Tape Loop Left i.e. those who repeat the same things regardless of circumstances.

A true blackout of MSNBC on all conservative sites and by op-ed writers would hasten its demise.

jangle12 on May 31, 2013 at 8:33 AM

There must be DOJ search warrants aimed at journalists who reported pro-Obama leaks too, right?

Yeah, they are right there, next to the IRS Scrutiny of the Liberal Tax Free Organizations.

jaydee_007 on May 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

It’s different when leftists do it, that always seems to be the underlying line. The old disposable ethics thing.

arand on May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Chris and Rachel, twins seperated at birth? Yep.

StevC on May 31, 2013 at 4:57 PM

This guy reminds me of myself during Watergate. When Alex Butterfield told the committee about the existence of a taping system in the Oval Office I was glad because now Nixon could prove he was innocent. We all know how that turned out.

Herb on June 1, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Did he steal that from Leno? (who would have made a goofy face after saying it)

RalphyBoy on June 1, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2