What a flimsy excuse.

I may be wrong, but I've read that. If true, his denial of involvement is a tad specious.

Whenever the AG recuses her/himself from an investigation, an Acting Attorney General is named to that investigation. In the case this specific investigation, that was the Deputy Attorney General.

In his capacity as Acting Attorney General for this investigation, it would have been the purview of James Cole to make the call on the subpoena.

A subpoena was issued. That's not the same as a FISA warrant so far as I know.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

written.

Is any prosecutorial agency required to notify the world when it conducts an investigation?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

you eagerly pound your keyboard and post on DU every time something comes out that you think will put the administration in an unflattering light.

I don't like the fact the phone records were subpoenaed, but it was technically legal. However, I'm not going to have an orgasm over this either.

but feel free to make up ludicrous piles of shit about my motivations, dear.

to make America look bad and give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Thats what I think. Maybe you have an inside link to the DoJ and are keeping us in the dark as to what is actually going on but I doubt it.

and tell it to Senator Leahy who is also disturbed by this.

I don't think you're informed about, well, anything.

and it ain't pretty. In fact its quiet unhealthy to get all wadded up like you have been lately and you need to stop before you have an aneurysm.

to be abused. You know nothing whatsoever about me. I know that YOU make sick, sick comments. Oh, and your faux apology was disgraceful.

Shame on you. Many times over.

It's done some great work in some areas but fallen flat in others.

Oh, wait...I know. It's an insult designed to minimize the person your calling that name. It's ugly, childish, and lame to do that. Just post your reply, say what you mean to say, and lay off the personal attacks. That's my advice.

just sayin' .

make for lousy discussion. I'm not interested in the history, nor do I know it. Calling people demeaning, sarcastic names is just plain bad manners, here or anywhere else.

Yet even here, we are but humans. All I'm saying is that the origin of that insult probably wasn't in this thread.

personally.

curious dynamic.

by an infiltrator...maybe they didn't want Al Qaida in Yeman to know they had been infiltrated? Don't know, that seems important to me.

so I assume Al Qaeda knew they had been infiltrated. The implication in the linked article is that the admin didn't want this story published because it contradicted something said earlier, but who knows? I don't. I'm not questioning that the investigation occurred or should have occurred.

What bothers me so much about this is that I don't think a court would have allowed this subpoena to be served and I think that is reason AP wasn't told - so they could not seek judicial review. This is a subpoena issued directly by DOJ, it seems.

It's beyond belief that knowledge of a record request issued this year could have compromised the investigation (timing from this news account). But what would have "compromised the investigation" is a judge quashing the subpoena because it was overbroad.

If this is stonewalled it's going to court. Press organizations are not going to accept this type of move.

to stop a plot in such a way that it seems like an accident or a coincidence*.

The best intelligence work is the stuff we don't hear about. Just like Valerie Plame before she was outed.

ETA: *because I assume there are usually other persons of interest in the network. If you tip them off that you're onto them then they're more likely to scatter.

If I may quibble on this particular issue, though, my guess is that they're concerned that the AP found out about it much earlier. Damage was minimized because the AP held the story until a day before the administration announced it, but they want to prevent the earlier leak in the future.

While that may be a legitimate concern (I don't know enough to say), I do think the burden of proof should be on the government to show that this wide dragnet was necessary. We should never simply trust the government, even if we believe it is being run by well-intentioned people.

Center-Left.

or Bachmann, or Cain, or Perry or whomever the latest one is.

Yes, there are "bad guys" out there...


But it seems the concern trolls are pretty much just trying to score points with anything that can be tied to Obama. Man this place has changed since the election.

people would question and ask why didn't they do something about it

better to be proactive than dead.

coming from. Now they're all over him, because the DOJ followed up? I mean, WTF?

Just sayin'.

the Guardian was the prime mover and shaker paper in exposing the Bush/Blair lies on Iraq. They have an excellent record on getting the stories right. Just becasue you don't like the news they publish of the conclusions they come to doesn't mean they aren't accurate.

I think that this is a disturbing threat to Amendment 1. And I think that is what is dangerous.

Working a hot story can burn fingers. AP doing their job and DOJ doing theirs. Saddest part is GOP doing their job too.

for pushing back on this intrusion on the 1st Amendment.