THIS JUST IN! A FEW CAN STAND!

BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IT'S NOT A GOOD TIME TO BE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

HE'S BEING CALLED A BLOCKHEAD.  HE'S BEING CALLED A F**K UP. 

BUT LOOK WHO JUST -- JUST STOOD UP.

K-ROTH.


BARRY'S MANY, MANY MANY SCANDALS ARE BEING MOCKED.

IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE WHORING OF THE CCR, THE BARACK WOULD BE LOST, THE BARACK WOULD BE LOST.

BUT LOOK WHO DOESN'T SLITHER ON HIS BELLY.   LOOK WHO JUST STOOD UP:



"Obama said that there would be more limits on targeted killings, a step in the right direction," said Kenneth Roth, executive director at Human Rights Watch. "But a mere promise that the US will work within established guidelines that remain secret provides little confidence that the U.S. is complying with international law."





FROM THE TCI WIRE:




 Starting in the US with The War on the First Amendment.  Last week, The War on the First Amendment's big revelations were that the Justice Dept had secretly seized the phone records of a 167-year-old news institution, the Associated Press. This week's revelation is that the Justice Dept targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen. Clark S. Judge (US News and World Reports) observed yesterday, "It has been a bad few weeks for the First Amendment.  The sinister commonality to the Internal Revenue Service and AP scandals and the James Rosen affair is that each appears to have been (strike "appears ": each was) an attempt to suppress a core American right."  Michael Isikoff (NBC News) reported:

 Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.


James Rosen's State Dept press badge was also used to retrace every moment he made in the State Dept when visiting.  Fox News reporter Whitney Ksiazek and Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee raised this issue yesterday at the State Dept spokesperson Patrick Ventrell's press briefing.

 Whitney Ksiazek: And then on a separate topic, was former Secretary Clinton consulted with the tracking of my colleague James Rosen’s building – State Department building swipe? And were any other employees interviewed in connection with the North Korea reporting that James Rosen did?


Patrick Ventrell: My understanding, this is a law enforcement matter. I really refer you to the Department of Justice for all details on that. In terms of our cooperation with the Department of Justice or the FBI on matters, that would be handled through Diplomatic Security channels and law enforcement channels. That’s how that’s done.

Matthew Lee:  So you – in principle, DS doesn’t have a problem turning over badge records to --

Patrick Ventrell: Again, I’m not aware of the specific cooperation on this case, but --


Matthew Lee:  Well, they got the records of his entry and egress, so you guys obviously handed – I mean, they didn’t make them up, I hope.


Patrick Ventrell:   Well, I can’t --

Matthew Lee:  So you guys obviously gave them to them.


Patrick Ventrell: I can’t comment on any details of this particular case, but when we have --

Matthew Lee: Well, I’m not talking about this particular case. Just in general, I mean, are you, like, running around, giving out the details of our comings and goings from this building?


Patrick Ventrell: Issues of cooperation on law enforcement matters between Diplomatic Security and the FBI are handled in law enforcement channels. I don’t have anything further on it.


Matthew Lee: Wait. Well, so you mean you’re not – do you just give the information out if people ask for it? Or do they need a court order or something?


Patrick Ventrell:  Matt, I’m not sure of the legal circumstances on that kind of information sharing.

Matthew Lee: Well, can you check?

Patrick Ventrell: Sure.

Matthew Lee: It would be --

Patrick Ventrell: I’m happy to check on --

Matthew Lee: If DOJ comes to you and says we want the entry and exit records from people, persons X, Y, and Z, do you just give them to them? Or do they have to --

Patrick Ventrell: My understanding is there’s a legal process that’s followed, but I’d have to check with the lawyers.

Matthew Lee:  Well, can you find out what the – what it is --

Patrick Ventrell: I’d be happy to check.

Matthew Lee: -- from your end, whether they need a subpoena or whether they need something like that.






This afternoon, Luke Johnson (Huffington Post) explained, "The Justice Department argued that Fox News reporter James Rosen's emails should be monitored for an indefinite period of time, even in the absence of being able to bring charges against him, according to court filings unearthed by The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.  The revelation demonstrates the vast power that the Justice Department used against the journalist, who drew attention for publishing an article on North Korea's nuclear plans." Phil Mattingly (Bloomberg News) adds, "The Justice Department, in a statement today, said Holder was involved in the discussions as prosecutors deliberated over whether to seek the search warrant in the investigation into the leak of information about North Korea’s nuclear program in 2009."

On the president's remarks yesterday, Andrea Mitchell (Andrea Mitchell Reports -- link is video) had questions for Antony Blinken today:


Andrea Mitchell: I also wanted to ask you about the leak investigations.  He said in his speech yesterday that he's trying to get answers from the Justice Dept.  Why does he need answers from the Justice Dept about something that has been going on for so long?  Isn't he aware more broadly of the way these leaks are pursued and the way journalists have been swept up in it?

White House Deputy National Security Advisor Antony Blinken: Well Andrea, I obviously can't comment on a specific investigation but I can say this and it goes towards what the president said yesterday --

Yeah, we heard what heard what Barack said yesterday.  So you've got no new comments.  Gotcha.  He also pimped Barack's 'support' for a media shield law.  It was left to a news veteran today to remind the public that Barack's embrace of a proposed media shield law is a new development.  Today on CBS This Morning (link is video), hosts Gayle King and Charlie Rose discussed the issue with veteran CBS journalist Bob Schieffer (who hosts CBS' Face The Nation).

Gayle King: The President also said yesterday, Bob, that he wants to protect journalists from the government's overreach and now comes news this morning that Attorney General Eric HOlder signed off on allowing an investigation into some reporters' e-mails.  Is that an awkward position?

Bob Schieffer: Well I think what's interesting here is the President has said he wants Attorney General Holder to be the one who does this review about protecting reporters' rights and all of that when it is the Justice Dept, of course, that has caused all this controversy.  I mean, the president's saying he wants to review this and he wants to protect reporters' sources.  I think a lot of journalistic organizations and the people who run them are going to view this with  skepticism.  They'll go back to the old Ronald Reagan "trust, but verify" because the last time they introduced the shield law, uh, it was the President and this administration that watered it down and it, uh -- and it just laid there.  Nothing ever happened.  They're going to now reintroduce the same legislation.  But I think a lot of people are just waiting to see how serious the President is about this, because there's no question in the minds of many journalistic organizations -- and there's no question in my mind -- this was an outrageous overreach when they subpoenaed all these records at the Associated Press and some of these other instances as well.

Gene Policinski (San Jose Mercury News)  reminds, "Freedom to report the news requires the freedom to gather it."  Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program. usually airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week.  It did have a new weekly program this week but WBAI listeners didn't hear it.  WBAI is in pledge mode and instead had  Heidi Boghosian, and  Michael S. Smith for two hours live asking for donations to WBAI (if you'd like to donate, click here) and presenting a different program than this week's taped program.  From the live pledge drive:


Michael S. Smith:  And that raid on Associated Press where they got the home, cell phone and business phone records of 100 AP reporters --

Heidi Boghosian:  Right.

Without a warrant.  In clear violation of the Fourth Amendment --

Heidi Boghosian: Right.

Michael Smith:  and the First Amendment.  And just cleaned up the AP records.  Unprecedented.

Heidi Boghosian: It's unprecedented, Michael.

Michael Smith:  It's one thing after another.

Heidi Boghosian:  It's illegal too.  They're supposed to give notice when they do that but what's clearly happening is the press in this country is under attack.  We no longer have really a so-called free press.  If you look at the case of  Bradley Manning, Jeremy Hammond -- who's facing 42 years in prison for uploading documents to WikiLeaks  and of course Julian Assange.  Now the AP spying, the warrantless spying that has effected countless legal organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, The People's Law Center in Chicago --

Michael Smith:  You know, you know why it's effected so many.

Heidi Boghosian:  Why?

Michael Smith:  Because the people effected by the raid on AP files are not just the AP reporters but they're their sources.

Heidi Boghosian:  Exactly.

Michael Smith:  Who's gonna --

Heidi Boghosian:  Who's gonna turn over information?

Michael Smith:  Who's gonna tell something to an AP reporter knowing that their phone conversation is going to go to the FBI?

Heidi Boghosian:  Exactly.  Exactly.  So we have what we have called "the chilling effect on Free Speech in this country" -- which again is why you need to support WBAI because we're not afraid to bring you the truth in reporting.


 At the Libertarian CATO Institute, Julian Sanchez argues the administration needs to take certain steps:

Transparency can begin with letting the public know exactly what the guidelines for investigating the press are—and how the Justice Department interprets them. As the FBI’s operational guidelines make clear, the rules requiring the press to be notified when their phone records are obtained only apply to subpoenas—not other secretive tools, such as National Security Letters, which can be issued without court approval. But the rules governing NSL demands for media records remain secret.
The Justice Department should also release any internal memos interpreting the rules governing press investigations. We know, for example, that there exists an informal 2009 opinion in which Justice Department lawyers analyzed how the rules would apply to sweeping demands—such as so-called “community of interest” requests—that can vacuum up a reporter’s records (among many others) even if the reporter is not specifically named as a target. Only brief excerpts of that opinion have been disclosed, thanks to a 2010 Inspector General report, and there is no way of knowing how many others remain secret.
Finally, we need an independent review—conducted by the Office of the Inspector General, not Attorney General Holder—to determine just how much surveillance of reporters has already occurred. It seems clear that the Justice Department does not think the current rules always require the press to be informed when they’ve been spied on: DOJ lawyers convinced a judge that the government never had to notify Rosen they’d read his e-mails. And because demands for electronic records can be quite broad, it would be all too easy for the government to end up with sensitive information about journalistic investigations even when no reporter was explicitly targeted.
When Congress and the public know what the rules really are, and how they have been applied in practice, we can begin a serious conversation about what reforms are needed to protect press freedom. Asking Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder, on the other hand, is unlikely to protect much of anything—except, perhaps, Eric Holder.




Back to yesterday's State Dept press briefing. Later in the briefing, Asia Today and India Globe's Raghubir Goyal had a question.



Raghubir Goyal: New subject?

Patrick Ventrell: Yeah.

Raghubir Goyal: Question, Patrick, on the freedom of the press, globally.


Patrick Ventrell: You ask very broad questions, Goyal. (Laughter.)

Raghubir Goyal: Just simple question on the freedom of the press.

Patrick Ventrell: We support the freedom of the press. (Laughter.)

Raghubir Goyal: And the question is --

Matthew Lee: Do you?

Patrick Ventrell: We do.

Matthew Lee: Do you really?

Patrick Ventrell: We do, Matt.

Matthew Lee: Are you speaking for the entire Administration, or just this building?

Patrick Ventrell: We support the freedom of the press. We support it globally. We support it here at home.

Matthew Lee: That’s the position of this building. Is it the position of the entire Administration?

Patrick Ventrell: It is.

Raghubir Goyal: Just to mark the international freedom of the press, and recently Freedom House, they placed another 84 names of the journalists who were killed in 25 countries, but – these are only official from the Freedom House – but hundreds of journalists are beaten, jailed, or killed in many countries – more than 25 countries. My question is here: When Secretary meets with world leaders here or abroad, does he talk ever other than human rights but on the freedom of the press in these countries?

Patrick Ventrell: Indeed, he constantly and consistently raises these issues with foreign leaders around the world and here when he meets with them. And I think you heard over the two weeks during our freedom of the press activities, many of the cases that we called out, the high priority that we place on this, and our deep concern for the well-being of journalists who face violence and repression for the work that they do around the world. So that’s something we’re deeply committed to.

  
Raghubir Goyal: -- especially in China or Saudi Arabia and --

Patrick Ventrell: It includes all those countries.

Raghubir Goyal: Thank you, sir.

Matthew Lee: Is it just violence and repression? Or is it also government intimidation or – that you’re opposed to?

Patrick Ventrell: That as well. All of that.

Matthew Lee: So in other words, the State Department opposes the Administration – the rest of the Justice Department’s investigations into --

Patrick Ventrell: Well, again, I think you’re trying to conflate two issues here.

Matthew Lee: No, no. I’m asking about freedom of the press. That was what the question was.

Patrick Ventrell: And we do – and we support freedom of the press. I think you’ve heard the President – I think you’ve heard the White House talk about this extensively.

Matthew Lee: Right. So you – and you think that violence and repression against journalism – journalists is wrong, as you do harassment or intimidation by government agencies.

Patrick Ventrell: All of the above.

Matthew Lee: So you do not regard what the Justice Department has been doing as harassment or intimidation.

Patrick Ventrell: Again, I can’t comment on a specific law enforcement investigation.

Matthew Lee: I’m not asking about a specific case. In general, would the State Department oppose or support harassment, intimidation, or prosecution of journalists for publishing information?

Patrick Ventrell: We oppose that, in terms of them – is this around the world --

Matthew Lee: Okay. So the State Department then opposes the Justice Department’s prosecution.

Patrick Ventrell: Again, you’re trying to get me to conflate two issues.




No, not really but way to send a mixed signal to the world Patrick Ventrell.  Let's hope Secretary of State John Kerry does raise the issues of press freedom with Nouri al-Maliki's government in Iraq.  As Helena Williams (Independent) noted earlier this month, "According to the CPJ, Iraq continues to have the world's worst record on impunity, with more than 90 unsolved murders over the past decade and no sign that the authorities are working to solve any of them."

Article 36 of the Iraqi Constitution guarantees "Freedom of expression, through all mean," "Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication" and "Freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration.  This shall be regulated by law."  Every week, Nouri al-Maliki, chief thug and prime minister in Iraq, demonstrates that he has trouble comprehending if he bothers to read. Fridays in Iraq. Since December 21st, that's meant ongoing protests.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Journalists arrested for covering protests"
"Another explosive investigative report from Aaron ..."
"Summer Salsa in the Kitchen"
"Student loans"
"Frank James will not be bound by media ethics"
"The TV season was all about glorifying sexism"
"Iraqi oil"
"Lois Lerner took the 5th?"
"the impotency of jeffrey st. clair"
"noam chomsky and his lack of ethics"
"Why did I write about Little Missy?"
"News media"
"Jack A. Smith doesn't know Jack"
"Sad days for the world"
"Marjorie Cohn"
"The insane new policy from the Scouts"
"The problem is Macaray not Bill Maher"
"Colgate Ready"
"Why does Shinseki still have a job?"
"How not to inform about Benghazi"
"The Drone War still"
"Smarter than a Polifact"
"THIS JUST IN! SMARTER THAN A POLIFACT!"

THIS JUST IN! SMARTER THAN A POLIFACT!

BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IN HIS SPEECH AND SWIMSUIT COMPETITION AT FORT MCNAIR YESTERDAY, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECLARED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO MAJOR TERRORISTS ATTACKS ON THE US SINCE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O FIRST ASKED IF HE SHOULD LET HIS HAIR GROW UP, "I'M THINKING CORN ROWS."  THEN HE ASKED IF WE HAD SEEN POLIFACT'S 'TRUTH' RATING ON THIS?

POLIFACT NOTES:

We see two terrorist attacks during Obama’s tenure that could be considered "large scale."

One is the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 soldiers and civilians dead and more than two dozen others wounded. Nidal Hasan, a psychiatrist and major in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, is the only suspect and is now awaiting a military trial.

The other incident is the bombing at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, that killed three and injured more than 260. Officials are still determining the extent of the role played by Islamic extremism in the accused bombers’ motivations. (We aren’t including the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, because it didn’t take place on the U.S. mainland.)


"CAN YOU BELIEVE THOSE JOKERS?" HE ASKED US. "THEY SAID 'HALF-TRUE.'  NOW SOMETHING IS EITHER TRUE OR IT IS FALSE.  THERE'S NO 'HALF-TRUE.' EVEN I KNOW THAT!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today, US President Barack Obama blathered on in that self-justifying way that War Criminals all seem to naturally shift into.  Like many a president on the ropes, he elected to give his speech at a military base, Fort McNair, where he hoped (wrongly) he would be better able to manage the crowd.  The  main topic was The Drone War.

Yesterday, as part of the roll out for today's speech, the Justice Dept's admission of 4 Americans killed by drones in The Drone War suddenly made the news.  As The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild observes in a radio commentary ("Tony Sopranco in the Oval Office") observes today, "And it claims with very little credibility that it didn't mean to kill three of the four which I'm sure provides great comfort and solace to their families."

Admitting to four known murders was seen by some, such as the weak  CCR, as good news  -- as though Barack was the friend you were launching an intervention on and not the man who has, as The Bureau of Investigative Journalism notes, ordered 316 drone strikes in Pakistan alone, resulting in the deaths of at least 197 children.   In a speech of nearly 6,500 words (I count 6,494),  he never noted what Alice K. Ross (Bureau of Investigative Journalism) reported earlier this month, that a Pakistan Peshawar High Court had ruled that these Drone Strikes were "criminal offences," a "war crime," a "blatant violation of basic human rights" and that the judge called for the United Nations Security Council to step in.

Though he spent a great deal of time making glib remarks about other countries, he never noted that the US had popularized The Drone War and made it an 'acceptable choice' for other countries, or that the US was providing drones with kill capacity to other countries.  He never acknowledged, for example, Nathalie Guibert (Le Monde) report, from earlier this week, that France will be purchasing  drones from the US --  two Reaper drones which will have to be 'European-ized' due to the fact that the drones are illegal as is in Europe. Germany has already spent $400 million to purchase several drones from Northrop Grunman Corporation.

Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) offers this take of today's speech, "But if the speech is remembered for anything years hence it will be as the moment when the president declared 'The war on terrorism is dead! long live the open-ended game of whack-a-mole against diffuse networks!'  Yes, that's right. Obama has rhetorically put to bed the frankly silly GWOT terminology -- while obliquely calling for years of low-grade conflict."


Barack's nearly 6500 words included:



From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation --  and world -- that we leave to our children.  So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.



"We" did not make a decision on The Drone War, no vote from the American people was sought, no judicial review of The Drone War took place and, until last month's Senate hearing, there has been no little Congressional acknowledgment, let alone review.  And on that US Senate hearing last month?  Alice K. Ross (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism) observed that "the government [White House] refused to send a representative to yesterday's hearing."

At the heart of the objection to what Barack has done is the US legal concept that a democracy does not allow any one person to be judge, jury and executioner.  But that's what Barack has done and been as he has overseen The Drone War. 

 He had the audacity to invoke the phrase "rule of law" twice in his speech early on -- once to take a swipe at his predecessor, once to praise himself.  Rule of law does not allow one person to be judge, jury and executioner.  Rule of law has not been followed in The Drone War.  The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clauses have been ignored and broken.

He has ignored rule of law and the notion of democratic consent.  He has completely confused his role and the powers granted the office by the US Constitution as evidenced by his ridiculous assertions such as,  "For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives."  You are commander in chief of the US military.  You are not allowed to start a war, only Congress is.

Yes, Barack's administration made very clear in statements to the press that that had no respect for The War Powers Act but what Barack's actions with regards to The Drone War have made clear is that he has no understanding of what the Constitution allows a president to do or what it does not allow a president to do.  Either he has no understanding or just doesn't respect the Constitution.  He is not the commander in chief of the United States.  That title applies to his position over the military only.  As a person who lectured on the Constitution to college students, he should be aware of that fact.

In addition to not being commander in chief of the American people, his role as commander in chief is not supreme.  The US is not a military junta.  We have civilian control of the military which includes oversight of all actions built into the Constitution -- and that includes oversight of anyone in the Oval Office invoking the title commander in chief.

Terming it a "rebranding of the Bush era policies with some legalize," Jeremy Scahill shared his impression of the speech with Jake Tapper (The Lead with Jake Tapper, CNN) noting, "But effectively Obama has declared the war a battlefield and reserves the right to drone-bomb countries in pursuit of people against whom we may not even have direct evidence or that we're not seeking any indictments against."

In addition, as Julie Pace and Lara Jakes (AP) point out, the CIA controls the Yemen 'front' in The Drone War.  The Central Intelligence Agency -- like the Justice Dept -- is not part of the military.  Invoking 'commander in chief' with regards to his interaction and orders to the CIA is clearly violating "the chain of command" and militarizing a civilian agency, as well as disregarding the Constitution.  Before an e-mail comes in -- and some foolish people will -- the CIA is not needed by the military.  The military has intelligence units.  If you're unaware of them, for starters, you're unaware of how they were used to spy on American protesters during Vietnam.  But, for example, the US Army alone has MI, the Military Intelligence Corps, its own branch of the Army.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri allows armed militias to publicly threaten I..."
"Assault in the military (and why Maria Shriver sho..."
"The pregnancy blues"
"Film to see"
"Sir, I gave you the wrong information (Ava)"
"Time for a special prosecutor (Wally)"
"The TV funny"
"It was like Steel Magnolias at one point during the hearing"
"Silly Chris can't say the name"
"Hawija"
"War on the Press and Lizz Winstead"
"The Drone War"
"Future employment opportunities for Lois Lerner"
"THIS JUST IN! A WHOLE NEW WORLD FOR LOIS LERNER!"

THIS JUST IN! A WHOLE NEW WORLD FOR LOIS LERNER!

BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


IRS OFFICIAL LOIS LERNER INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AT YESTERDAY'S HOUSE AND OVERSIGHT GOVERNMENT REFORM HEARING.

PEOPLE ARE SAYING SHE NEEDS TO BE FIRED FROM HER JOB FOR HER REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS.  ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS ABOUT HER JOB AND HOW SHE DOES IT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF HER JOB.


SHOULD SHE LOSE HER JOB, PEOPLE ARE ALREADY THINKING UP WHAT A POST-GOVERNMENT LIFE COULD BE LIKE FOR LOIS LERNER AND IT'S RICH WITH POSSIBILITIES SUCH AS:

* PLAY THE LEAD IN A THEATER ADAPTION OF THE PIANO.

* APPLY TO FILL IN FOR VANNA WHITE ON WHEEL OF FORTUNE WHEN VANNA NEEDS A VACATION.

* BECOME THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON FOR "SNITCHES GET STITCHES."

* TRAVEL THROUGHOUT AMERICA, FROM SCHOOL TO SCHOOL, DEMONSTRATING TO YOUNG CHILDREN HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY PLAY THE QUIET GAME.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Our democracy was created by the people and for the people. When government power is used to target Americans for exercising their Constitutional rights, there is nothing we as representatives should find more important than to take it seriously, get to the bottom of it and eradicate the behavior.  Since 2010, there appears to be a targeting of people based on their beliefs.  These people, particularly those who use "Tea Party" in their name, were mocked by the liberal media, mocked by late night television and referred to by this administration regularly with disdain.  Even hear in the halls of Congress, people would talk about who the Tea Partiers were, who was Tea Party supported?  When, in fact, there is no Tea Party.  As the evidence has shown, there are hundreds and hundreds of organizations -- as independent as any single American -- who simply wanted to live up to the Constitution, to have their freedom and to have it protected by our country.  So last week when we received troubling complaints by groups across the country who received what appeared to be inappropriate and unnecessary questions -- in many cases after more than a year, in some cases two years of inaction by the IRS -- we went to the Inspector General -- who is here with us today.  In March of last year, upon the request of our staff  and later in a letter from Mr. Jordan, the Subcommittee Chairman, and myself, the IG launched a formal investigation.  We knew then that something seemed to be wrong.  We knew then that there was smoke.  We knew then that in fact something just didn't seem to be right. 

That's Committee Chair Darrell Issa speaking at today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.  The Ranking Member is Elijah Cummings who observed, "This is more important than one election.  The revelations that have come forward so far provides us with a moment pregnant with transformation -- not transformation for a moment but for generations to come and generations yet unborn."  The issue was the targeting of various groups by the IRS.  The
witnesses appearing before the Committee were former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal S. Wolin, Lois Lerner who is both Director of Exempt Organizations of the IRS and a Marcel Marceau protege, and Treasury Dept Inspector General J. Russell George.



Chair Darrell Issa:  Mr. George, before the Ways and Means Committee hearing, you told Representative Danny Davis the following, "Our audit, sir, began with the request of Congressional staff in -- I want to give you the correct date, sir -- I do not have it here.  March 1, 2012 is when there was an initial contact with the Government Oversight and Reform Committee  and are audit began or roughly" -- and then you go on with May or March, etc., etc.  So essentially, this began in your mind when you were made aware of it in March by members of my Committee -- staff members of my Committee.  Correct?

J. Russell George:  Uh, yes.

Chair Darrell Issa:  So, oddly enough, we have with us, and put it up on the board, from Holly Paz, a document just released to us from -- I guess in preparation for yesterday's interview -- that says "Forward TIGTA document request, the following are issues that could indicate a case to be considered, a potential Tea Party case, and sent for secondary screening. One Tea Party Patriots of 9-12 Project [. . .] 4, Statements in the case file that are critical of how the country is being run."  Now that's May 20, 2013.  To your knowledge -- and that is the result of an internal investigation done by the IRS, not your investigation. Oh, I'm sorry.  That's July 23rd, I'm looking at e-mails which are, unfortunately, this year, but that's July 23, 2012.  It's your understanding that the IRS concluded they had wrong doing from their own internal investigation by July 2012?

J. Russell George:  I have no information on that but, uh, let me consult with my counsel. [. . .] I have been informed that they conducted an internal review, sir, that was completed before that period. 

Chair Darrell Issa:  Okay. So it's your testimony that, in fact, independent of your activity, Mr. Shulman's reports conducted and concluded wrong doing and could have, in fact, reported that up the chain and taken appropriate action independent of your activities.

J. Russell George: That is certainly an option, sir.

Chair Darrell Issa:  So, Mr. Shulman, before I go back to Mr. George, it was your watch, your people did an internal review.  How is it you did not know that things were rotten in your shop in time to not only make sure it stopped, and stayed stopped, but in fact the Treasury, your boss sitting next to you, was aware of it?

 Douglas Shulman:  Uhm, you know, I, uh, said that I learned about this sometime in the spring -- and by "this," I mean I learned the fact that there was a list and the fact that "Tea Party" was on it --

Chair Darrell Issa:  Okay, so you knew at that time you knew that you had mistreated Americans within your organization and you saw no need to report it up the chain?  Is that your testimony?

Douglas Shulman:  My testimony is that I -- at that point I'd had a preliminary verbal report.  I'd been told at that same point that the activity was being stopped and I was told that the IG was looking at --

Chair Darrell Issa:  Okay, stop there.  I don't really care about the IG right now. The IG probably prompted the internal report.  The IG has been the reason, in fact, that we didn't hear about this until long after the election, till months or actually a year had gone by.  I'm asking you a question.  It was your job to make sure people weren't abused.  It was your job to stop abuse but also to report it.  Americans had been injured by the activity -- wrongful activity -- of your organization.  You say that you got it "vocal."  I don't care that the IRS doesn't keep paperwork.  I know that when I have to pay my taxes, I don't do it based on what I say I made or what I say my deductions are, that I need paper.  However, you knew.  You did not report up or did you report up to anyone else within your chain?

Douglas Shulman:  I had some of the facts, not all of the facts.  I had no idea of the scope and severity.  I didn't know the full list, I didn't know who was on the list.  I --

Chair Darrell Issa:  Okay, well I'm not going to belabor that because "I don't know" has been your answer previously.  I'm going to move back to the IG.  Mr. George, September 24, 2012, you mentioned your report would be ready in September.  These are exchanges we're putting up [on the screen] here. They're back and forth, they're not all personally with you.  So September 24, 2012, the answer to our request about this IG report was, "Field work for this audit is still ongoing."  Meaning we still don't get an answer.  December 18, 2012, "Any update on this?"  [Reply] "Sorry for the delayed response, I was studying for a final."  Okay.  That's when it was pushed off to March.  Just wanted to  check on the progress of this -- this is February 20, 2013 -- are you at a point where you can schedule a briefing?" From your organization, "We are leaving no stone unturned" -- this is February 22, 2013 -- "we won't be able to provide a detailed, substantive briefing until late April/early May."  My time is limited so I'll put the rest in for the record.  Mr George, I could go on as late as May 19th -- I'm sorry, May 9th -- where the Committee staff then sent on the 8th, "Can we go ahead and schedule a briefing?"  May 9th [reply], "I'll get back to you." And it goes on.  Mr. George, this Committee and the entire Congress has existing laws. Yesterday, I spoke before all of your fellow IGs.  Under existing law, you have a peer-level report of substantial misconduct or problems including waste, fraud and abuse.  The act describes your establishment -- meaning in this case, the IRS -- and Congress in the same sentence.  On August 3rd, I sent you a letter explaining the seven day rule, explaining the statute as it has been written for decades.  You have  responsibility to keep us continuously and -- according to statute -- equally informed. In this case it appears as though you certainly did not.  Would you agree with that?


J. Russell George: Uh, no, actually.

Chair Darrell Issa:  Okay, so when you conducted, day-after-day-after day, with Mr. Schulman's subordinate Ms. Paz, one after another interviews in which she's in the room, she's listening to all of these.  You're doing that.  You know, at some time, and I'm going to close with just a question, on what day did you know -- over this year period -- did you know personally that the IRS had abused Americans in the process of approval?  What was that day?  What was the a-ha moment?  And didn't you have an obligation to report that to Congress at that time?

J. Russell George:  Mr. Chairman, I have a detailed timeline which goes almost from month to month as to the interactions that we had with your staff  and then subsequently with the [IRS] commissioner as well as with officials at the Dept of the Treasury.  And I would appreciate the opportunity to give you a sampling of that.

Chair Darrell Issa:  We're going to accept that.  And I just want to close and then I'll let you take as much time as you need.  If your timeline essentially says you kept us informed so that we knew that in fact there was a pattern and could speak to Ways and Means to find out that 100s of organizations still languished not being approved after "the abusive behavior began," they still didn't get their answer in a timely fashion.  And if you're saying that you informed Mr. Wolin so that he would understand what is going on or others at Treasury and you informed us and Mr. Shulman, here's my problem.  Mr. Shulman has already said under oath, he didn't know.  Mr Wolin has already said under oath they didn't know.  And although I'm not under oath, I have reviewed my Committee staff documents, and of course it's a bipartisan relationship, we certainly did not have the information in any way, shape or form that could be understood so that Congressional action could occur until practically today.

J. Russell George:  Mr. Chairman, there are established procedures for conducting an audit and once again this is an audit.  And to ensure fairness and to ensure that we are completely accurate in the information that we convey to Congress, we will not report information until the IRS has had an opportunity to take a look at it to ensure that we're not misstating facts --

Chair Darrell Issa:  Mr. George, that is not the statute. That is not the statute.

J. Russell George:  But it would be incorrect for us to give you partial information which may not be accurate.  It would be counterproductive, sir, if we were to do that.


Ranking Member Elijah Cummings called out Shulman for not coming back to Congress after he was informed there was a problem and correcting his earlier pronouncement to the Committee that no targeting was taking place,  "It seems to me that after saying to the Congress 'absolutely no targeting,' it seems to me that you would come back even if it was a phone call or a letter or something.  Common sense."  Shulman repeated that he felt he was doing the right thing by being silent.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings:  Well I'm sorry, that's simply not good enough.  It's simply not good enough, Mr. Shulman.  The IRS conducting an internal investigation of its own.  Not the IG investigation, but there own investigation.  You personally knew there was a target list.  You knew it said "Tea Party" on it.  You put new processes in place and you took personnel actions.  You reassigned at least one individual back in 2012.  Come on, Mr. Shulman.  Help us help the taxpayers.  Am I missing something?


 Douglas Shulman: So as I --

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings:  Did you have an investigation?  Was there an internal investigation?


 Douglas Shulman:  I never understood that word of internal investigation.


Ranking Member Elijah Cumings:  Did you reassign at least one person back in 2012?


Douglas Shulman: Not that I was aware of.



Ranking Member Elijah Cummings:  You don't -- You don't know that?


 Douglas Shulman:  To the best of my knowledge, I was not involved in the reassignment of people in the uh determinations unit.  I have no recollection of that.


 

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings:  So when you learned about the targeting, apparently, you made some kind of inquiry because you said you found out that it had been resolved.  Who did you go to and who told you that it had been resolved?  And what did they say the resolution was?  You were the head of the IRS.


Douglas Shulman: I was the head of the IRS -- 
 


Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: And you've got Congress people that were upset about targeting.  They had been asking questions.  You had come [before the Committee] and said there was "absolutely no targeting."  And so help me with this.


 Douglas Shulman: First of all, let me express this is a very serious matter and I fully recognize that.



Great.  It only took Shulman 80 minutes into the hearing to 'express' that.  He had a lengthy opening statement that missed that point.


With few exceptions, the Democrats only focused on Shulman.  There are two reasons for that.  The secondary reason is that it's because Shulman was a Bully Boy Bush appointee.  The primary reason is that Fridays Ways and Means House Committee hearing resorted in blistering comments to Democrats on the Committee.  From their supporters in their districts.  One member told me he couldn't believe that an elderly woman who block walks and phone banks for him every two years when he's up for election felt he was letting the IRS off.  The IRS, because it collects money from people and few are thrilled to fork over money, has a built-in hostility factor with voters.  Fridays meeting struck many Democratic voters as if their elected officials were defending the IRS after it was caught in wrong doing.  They didn't do it astro-turf wise.  They did it by contacting the local offices in their districts and making it clear to people who knew them from previous campaign work just how offended they were.  It doesn't poll well with independents, sticking up for the IRS in this case, but four Dems on House Ways and Means and on Oversight told me that the complaints were coming from the core of their volunteer staff for re-election campaigns.  These are strong supporters and their offense is why you saw more action on the part of the Dems this hearing.

Focusing on Shulman allowed them to land blows on the IRS that they need to going into the re-election campaign.  My question for Oversight was if this were a DoD scandal and it was 2010, would they really think going after Robert Gates and terming him a Bully Boy Bush appointee would have made a difference?  Because while some will grab "Bush appointee" and wrap themselves in it like a safety blanket, the reality is that Shulman could have been asked for his resignation in 2009, in 2010, in 2011 . . .

And while Lois Lerner refused to testify, pleading the Fifth, it should be noted that everyone
assumes that had Congress dropped rounds of questioning and instead offered a round of charades,
she would have really shined.


Kat will cover the hearing at her site tonight, Wally will cover it at Rebecca's site, Ava will cover US House Rep Stephen Lynch in the hearing at Trina's site (Lynch was one of the strongest members in the hearing).


On the topic of Congress, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budge Comittee and she and Senator Maria Cantwell and US House Rep Cathy McMorris Rogers are expressing disappointment over a decision announced today:

For Immediate Release Murray: (202) 224-2834 Cantwell: (202) 224-8277 McMorris Rodgers: (509) 353-2374 MAY 22, 2013

Murray, Cantwell, McMorris Rodgers Disappointed By Air Force Decision on KC-46A Tanker Program

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) expressed their disappointment with the Air Force’s decision to base the KC-46A tanker program at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, despite the strong bid from Fairchild Air Force Base in Eastern Washington.

“Today’s decision by the Air Force is extremely disappointing, and seems to ignore the obvious advantages Fairchild has to support the military’s regional and global priorities and major flight programs like the KC-46A,” said Senator Murray.  “While pressing the top levels of the Pentagon for answers on today’s decisions, I will continue to work with the full delegation for future investments in Fairchild, including new tankers in the next rounds of basing decisions.”

"The Secretary of the Air Force stated today that Fairchild will be a strong contender for future tanker basing decisions,” said Senator Cantwell. “While today’s preliminary tanker decision is disappointing, I will work with the Washington delegation and local leaders to bring new tankers to Fairchild and ensure it remains a vital asset for our nation's tanker program. With Fairchild's 50-year history as a vital resource in the U.S. tanker refueling program, Spokane remains a strong choice for locating future refueling tankers.”

“This is not a loss. The Air Force has plans to procure 179 KC-46A refueling tankers. It is important to remember that this is only the first installment of 36 tankers. While it was our hope that Fairchild would be the preferred base to host the next-generation refueling tankers, today’s announcement continues to bolster Fairchild’s vibrant mission. In the next few years, the Air Force will continue to base KC-46A refueling tankers at additional installations,” said Rep. McMorris Rodgers. “Moving forward, Fairchild will compete very well and is in an excellent position to receive them. “For over a decade, our community has worked together to let the Air Force know we would welcome the tankers at Fairchild. Today’s decision demonstrates that our hard work was appreciated by the Air Force. I want to thank our community leaders – civilian and military; public sector and private sector; and by officials in both parties – for their commitment and teamwork. We have a lot to be proud of, and our efforts for Fairchild will continue.” 

In December 2011, May 2012, and most recently in April 2013, Murray, Cantwell, and McMorris Rodgers led Washington state delegation letters to U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, highlighting the unique benefits that Fairchild offers the Air Force and the KC-46A tanker program, specifically.  Fairchild, which is ideally situated to support the Department of Defense’s broad-based focus on the Asia-Pacific region, is already home to the Active Duty 92nd Air Refueling Wing and the Washington Air National Guard's 141st Air Refueling Wing, which both fly the KC-135 aerial refueling tankers, and has continually modernized its facilities through more than $400 million in military construction investments.

The Washington state delegation strongly advocated for Fairchild’s bid for the tanker program and has helped direct significant federal investments to the base. Those investments have included:

·         $11 million to fund a new Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Force Support Complex

·         $4.15 million for a Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility

·         Funding for a redesigned hangar, energy efficient improvements, mission support complex, resistance training facility, and Armed Forces Reserve Center

·         Funding for a new 14,000 foot runway, a new, state-of-the-art fitness center, and a new wing command headquarters to better integrate active-duty Airmen and Air National Guardsmen

###

Sean Coit

Press Secretary

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834

Get Updates from Senator Murray

@PattyMurray

@PattyMurray | @SenateBudget | @MegRoh

Senator Patty Murray's office

 

Senator Murray's YouTube Channel

 

Senator Murray's Press Office Twitter Account

 

RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Violence continues, WSWS continues to cover for No..."
"Iraq around the world"
"Jane Mayer's War on Adjectives"
"Dimitri at CNN Viewer Communications"
"New documentary"
"a documentary and the thinning of support"
"Those DC scandals"
"Cat fight coming"
"Revolution (trust issues episode)"
"Katrina vanden Heuvel gets called out"
"Nutty Naomi Wolf"
"Znet for laughs"
"THIS JUST IN! MADCAP LOIS GOES TO WASHINGTON!"
"Lois Lerner be cray-cray"

THIS JUST IN! MADCAP LOIS GOES TO WASHINGTON!

BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

TODAY, IRS OFFICIAL LOIS LERNER PLANS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS AND PLEAD THE FIFTH.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, A VERY NERVOUS LERNER INVITED THESE REPORTERS INTO HER HOME AND EXPLAINED, "I'M REALLY AFRAID OF WHAT THEY MIGHT ASK ME.  LIKE AM I COMMUNIST?  DID I EVER ATTEND A PTA MEETING?  DO I DO TIME-SHARES?  I AIN'T GOING DOWN LIKE THAT.  NO, SIREE, BOB.  MISS LOIS LERNER IS NOBODY'S FOOL."

APPARENTLY FEELING BETTER TO GET IT ALL OF HER CHEST, LERNER PUT ON HER TIN FOIL HAT, SMILED AND HEADED OFF TO SEE CONGRESS.




FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 564 violent deaths so far this month and they have 11 more days in the month to count.  Including today when Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Tarmiya suicide bomber claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers (seven more injured), a Tuk Hurmato car bombing which claimed 5 lives (forty-three more injured), and 3 Kirkuk roadside bombings which claimed 6 lives (twenty-five more injured).  Mustafa Mahmoud, Isabel Coles and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) quote Kirkuk survivor Mahmoud Jumaa stating, "I heard the explosions, but never thought this place would be targeted since these animals have nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with sect, nothing to do with ethnicity or religion." Alsumaria notes that in Ramadi a leader of the ongoing demonstrations died from a car bombing.  NINA identifies him as Sheikh Malik al-Dulaimi and adds that he," along with other capable tribal chiefs of Anbar, took care of supplying tents, food and other requirements to the protestors in Ramadi."  Nouri issued no statement demanding that the killers responsible for Sheikh Malik al-Dulaimi be brought to justice.  Nouri issued no statement condemning the killing of al-Dulaimi.    Kareem Raheem (Reuters) counts over 40 dead from violence today.

The National notes:


First to blame for the increasing bloodshed, which killed at least 86 on Monday alone and 352 so far this month, is Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki.
"Mr Al Maliki failed to contain the rising sectarian tensions in the early stages, resorting instead to security solutions and rejecting dialogue with his opponents," the editorial noted.
Mr Al Maliki ignored the demands of residents in Anbar province, where the largest sit-ins and protests have been taking place.
A Shia Muslim, Mr Al Maliki is accused by Sunnis of being biased towards his sect in terms of official posts. The bomb and gun attacks on Monday targeted mainly Shia areas, including in the capital Baghdad.
In a statement reported yesterday, the Iraqi premier said: "I assure the Iraqi people that the [the militants] will not be able to bring us back to sectarian conflict," pledging an overhaul at the high and middle levels of his security apparatus following its failure to stop the attacks.
A statement like this shows how Mr Al Maliki is still "in denial", since the crisis is about political failure, rather than security flops, Al Quds Al Arabi argued.

 AFP makes much of Nouri's 'big shake up in security command' yet all they can list is that a someone over the security in the city of Baghdad lost his post.  Woah! What a shake up.  All Iraq News notes that's the only position changed (Lt Gen Abdul Amir Kamel will replace Lt Gen Ahmed Hashim).


Meanwhile Abbas al-Mahmadawi flaunts ignorance.  He's the Secretary General of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coalition.  (At one point, this was a term for Sahwa aka Sons of Iraq.)  According to Press TV, "Britain and the US are responsible for the growing number of bombings in Iraq because of their sales of fake bomb detects to the country, Secretary Genera of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coaltion Abbas Al Mahmadawi says."  England did not sell the 'magic' wands.  A British citizen did and the UK put him on trial, convicted him and sentenced him.

The US government did not sale any magic wands and no US citizen was in charge of that company.  I believe it was also the US press that first raised objections about the wands.  At the start of November 2009, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported on these 'bomb detectors' in use in Iraq: "The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works 'on the same principle as a Ouija board' -- the power of suggestion -- said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosive divining rod."


It's amazing that Abbas is too cowardly to blame Nouri al-Maliki.  From yesterday's snapshot:

So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working?  No.  It was known before that.  May 11th,  Alsumaria reported  that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased anymore.  There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to answer questions.  He needs to.  But he has refused all calls so far -- despite the Constitution on this issue.  He continues to violate and ignore the Constitution.   Kitabat  also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here.  May 12th,   Alsumaria reported Parliament's Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of "top officials" involved.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander "Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs, which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the intelligence information."  May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands were still being used in Baghdad.


Nouri was told they didn't work and he ordered them anyway.  They're still being used -- and they don't work.

Wait, it gets better.

Al Mada reports that Nouri held a press conference today and announced that the magic wands work.  Back when Karim reported they were being used, I noted Nouri's plan to sue the maker just lost standing.  Any chance that it still had legal standing is now gone.  Nouri stood up and Baghdad and declared that the rip-off devices work.  That's money Iraq will now never get back.  It doesn't matter that they don't work.  Ignoring years of warnings, Nouri continues to use them.  It no longer matters, he's lost standing to sue.

What an idiot.  Dar Addustour has him insisting that these 'magic' wands can detect bombs 20 to 40% of the time.  No, they can't.  This was established in a court of law.  What an idiot.  Robert Booth (Guardian) reported May 2nd:

McCormick sold 7,000 fake bomb detectors based on useless golf ball finders to the Iraqi government and other international agencies for prices ranging from £1,600 per unit to £19,000.
They cost McCormick less than $50 (£32) and police believe sales to Iraq alone were worth more than £55m, buying McCormick a mansion in Bath, holiday homes abroad and a yacht.
Judge Richard Hone told McCormick: "Your fraudulent conduct in selling so many useless devices for simply enormous profit promoted a false sense of security and in all probability materially contributed to causing death and injury to innocent individuals."

Get it? They didn't work.  They were never going to work.  They had nothing to do with bombs but were invented to be golf ball finders and were useless at even that.


Why didn't Nouri appear before Parliament today?  Because he has blood on his hands and he knows it.  Instead of getting honest, he's now insisting that the magic wands work.

Christiane Amanpour (Amanpour, CNN) spoke with Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari about the situation in Iraq and he stated, "The government has its own failing.  I'm not here to give you a rosy picture or to portray unrealistic picture.  But the country is not crashing."



Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujafi also held a press conference.  All Iraq News reports that  he called out Nouri for ordering State of Law MPs not to attend today's emergency session.  He calls it a violation of the Constitution.  National Iraqi News Agency notes that al-Nujaifi "added that there is no personal problem between him and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, confirming that the problem lies in the lack of respect from al-Maliki to the legislative authority."   Alsumaria reports State of Law is screaming for al-Nujaifi to resign. (State of Law is Nouri's political slate.  In the 2010 elections, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya beat State of Law.)  Alsumaria notes cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has weighed in but their brief report doesn't make clear on whose side. He apologizes to the Iraqi people for what is happening and blames government officials -- Iraqiya and State of Law both?  Nouri for calling for a boycott of the emergency session?   It's not clear.

Following yesterday's violence in Basra and Baghdad, the Iraq Times reports professors and teachers belonging to the National Alliance coalition are asking that Nouri be dismissed as prime minister as a result of the continued violence and unstable security.  Moqtada's bloc is part of the Shi'ite National Alliance (as is Nouri's State of Law).  The report notes an MP from Moqtada's bloc said Nouri needs to resign or appear before Parliament. He's been denounced for the way he's managed Iraqi security.  As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) has a column on the whole matter that strives for balance and notes that the Parliament was directly elected by the people (not true of the prime minister) and that Nouri should show respect for democracy and for the state institutions.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Satisifed customer Nouri says magic wands work"
"Fact-Free Jon Stewart, King of Dumb Comedy"
"Jay Rosen distorts the truth"
"Jeer and cheer"
"The White House keeps attacking the press"
"crazy robert parry just gets nuttier"
"The Client List"
"Chittum, Chittum Bang Bang"
"Corrente and other things that suck "
"Where I gloat"
"Political scandals, the death of Body of Proof, etc."
"Look at the lunatics!"
"Jay Carney shares a recipe"
"THIS JUST IN! IN THE KITCHEN WITH JAY CARNEY!"

THIS JUST IN! IN THE KITCHEN WITH JAY CARNEY!

BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY SHARED WITH THESE REPORTERS YESTERDAY HIS FAVORITE RECIPE.

"I'M QUITE THE COOK," CARNEY BOASTED.  "AND THIS IS A SIMPLE SANDWICH RECIPE THAT REQUIRES NO COOKING!"

"FIRST," HE EXPLAINED, "ON FRIDAY, TELL AN OUTRAGEOUS LIE.  THEN THE NEXT MONDAY ADMIT THAT YOU GOT IT WRONG IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE PRESS CORPS. I CALL IT A S**T SANDWICH AND BEING THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE WHITE HOUSE HAS MADE ME AN EXPERT NOT JUST ON MAKING THEM BUT ON EATING THEM.  WITH RELISH!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



In the US, The War on the First Amendment continues.  Last Monday brought the shocking news that the US Justice Dept had secretly seized two months of phone records from the historic, 167-year-old news organization the Associated Press.  This was over a 'leak' supposedly.  But the Justice Dept knew of the 2012 report over a week before it was published.  The Justice Dept also felt that they would ignore laws requiring them to at first work with the AP and resort to secret seizure only after that.  Instead, they moved to secret seziure and when the records were seized no one still knows.  (It could have been 45 days prior to them notifying the AP.  But it could have been as much as 90 days.)  No one knows.  This is not a free society, this is not an open society.  This is an offense and it's outrageous.

Yesterday, another attack in The War on the First Amendment is revealed.   Ann E. Marimow (Washington Post) breaks the news of the Justice Dept targeting Fox News' James Rosen over press reports he filed on North Korea.  They not only seized his phone records, they also sezied his personal e-mails and "used security badge access records to track the reporter's comings and goings from the State Department." First Amendment attorney Charles Tobin tells the Post, "Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public. That's a very dangerous road to go down."  CNN explains, "The case centered on the leak of intelligence about North Korea in 2009, in which analysts predicted the possibility of a nuclear test if the U.S. enacted further sanctions on the regime. Fox News reported on that analysis on June 11, 2009."  Free Speech Radio News reports it this way:

Dorian Merina:  More information has surfaced on the Department of Justice's surveillance of journalists. The Washington Post reports that the DOJ spied on Fox News DC correspondent James Rosen after he wrote an article in 2009 about North Korea's nuclear program. Not only did investigators review his phone records, they also tracked his security badge to find out when he visited the State Department and they got a search warrant allowing them to read his personal Gmail correspondence. The warrant identifies Rosen as a reporter, but also alleges that as a recipient of leaked information he is a co-conspirator, subject to charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. So far, no formal charges against Rosen have been filed.


  Ned Resnikoff (NBC News) adds:



The revelation that the DOJ would classify a journalist as an un-indicted co-conspirator under the 1917 Espionage Act is “even a bigger deal” than the department’s seizure of Associated Press  phone records, said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
"A line has been crossed that has always been a very critical bulwark,” he said. “That’s the line between government leakers and media publishers." No journalist has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act, what has traditionally "only been used against those who gave or sold secrets to the enemy."


The Project on Government Secrecy's Steven Aftergood tells Ann E. Marimow, "Asking for information has never been deemed a crime.  It's a line that has not been crossed up until now."
Fox News Vice President of News Michael Clemente issued a statement today noting, "We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter.  In fact, it is downright chilling.  We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."  US Senator Marco Rubio's office sent out the following today:

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement after a report was released claiming that the Obama Administration targeted a FOX News reporter during a leak investigation:
"I am very concerned by reports the Obama Administration targeted a FOX News reporter for possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment. The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration’s handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate.  But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government – not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve a vital function in our democracy. We must insist that federal agents not use legitimate investigations as an excuse to harass journalists they deem unfriendly to the President or the Administration.  We shouldn’t even have to ask if our government would do such a thing, but unfortunately as the unfolding IRS scandal shows, this White House has created a culture where we do have to explicitly make these kinds of requests."

 Digging around the story, Garance Franke-Ruta (The Atlantic) notes Rosen but also wonders who else in the press has the government gone after?  She writes, "In an August 2010 report on the indictment of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim on charges of 'disclosing national defense information in June 2009 to a national news organization, believed to be Fox News,' several other reporters were mentioned in relation to the DoJ leak investigations, in addition to Rosen."  She notes Siobhan Gorman (Wall St. Journal) and Richard Silverstein (Tikun Olam) were two others mentioned.  Philip Klein (Washington Examiner) wonders if it goes beyond this case and AP:

Last year, Bloomberg reported that Attorney General Eric Holder “has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.” The administration has also received a failing grade for its ignoring of Freedom of Information Act requests.
Taken together, all such actions have a toll. They mean that federal officials are less likely to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing and that journalists are less likely to obtain damning information that they can pass along to the public. The suggestion by the DOJ that Rosen broke the law, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean the end of investigative journalism in America.


Mother Jones' David Corn Tweeted:

David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 6h

If a reporter asks a source who handles classified material for info, does DOJ see that as a crime? The Rosen case may be more imp. than AP.

Expand

For that observation, he got blowback and had to try and provide a Twitter tutorial on Freedom of the Press:

1. 
   
2. David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 5h

   Should DOJ have characterized Woodward as criminal co-conspirator for getting info from Felt or NYT reporters for accepting Pentagon Papers?

   Expand
3. David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 6h

   A reminder to Fox/Rosen haters: Bush-Cheney national security abuses uncovered by nat. sec. reporters who could now be at risk.

   Expand
4. David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 6h

   To Fox-hating tweeps, one doesn't have to defend Fox/Rosen to note DOJ is moving into a troubling area-criminalizing reporter-source contact

   Expand
5. Mother Jones ‏@MotherJones 6h

   An Inside Look at How DOJ Goes After Reporters, Not Just Leakers http://bit.ly/16FrlgE 

   Retweeted by David Corn

   Expand

Why did Corn have to perform a tutorial?  Because of the nonsense pushback of "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby."  Writing about the scandal of targeting the AP, Craig Aaron (The Progressive) noted last week:

The probe appears to be unprecedented in its scale and scope. But as Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation notes: “In five years, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than all other administrations combined, and virtually all these prosecutions have engulfed journalists one way or another.”
The initial reaction of the Obama administration was evasion from Attorney General Eric Holder and squirming by White House Spokesman Jay Carney -- who became flustered when the briefing-room lapdogs started to snarl.
Pro-Obama messengers were instructed to act concerned the reporters might have tipped off the terrorists and -- if that didn’t work -- to shout “Valerie Plame” a lot. But that mostly served as a reminder of how much the most transparent administration ever™ was outdoing another famous Dick: Dick Cheney.


As many have noted, you can see the pushback nonsense at CJR again today.  But who takes CJR seriously anymore?  Rhonda Roland Shearer's expose "CJR Reporter Lying, Exploiting a Source? What's happening at Columbia Journalism Review?" revealed CJR doesn't check their facts, they humiliate a private citizen and won't apologize or correct their errors, they allow a 'reporter' to do a stunt to make a documentary and they treat it as news, they defend their 'reporter' lying to newspaper reporters . . . The list never ends.

In the world of real journalism, there is concern.  Connie Schultz (Orlando Sentinel) notes:

 
Meanwhile, journalists around the country are asking, "What the heck is going on?"
It should be the question on every concerned citizen's mind. It breaks my heart that we need this reminder: A thriving — and free — press is often the only check on representative government. Already, potential government whistle-blowers have lost their nerve and never will pick up that phone.

It's a point New York Times investigative reporter Mark Mazzetti makes to Greg Sargent (Washington Post) today, "There’s no question that this has a chilling effect.  People who have talked in the past are less willing to talk now. Everyone is worried about communication and how to communicate, and [asking if there] is there any method of communication that is not being monitored. It’s got people on both sides -- the reporter and source side -- pretty concerned."  Jordy Yager and Mike Lillis (The Hill) point out, "Obama himself has made no apologies for the Justice’s sweep of AP phone records."

He issued no apologies for that.  But late Friday, he did issue the following:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

May 17, 2013

Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq

NOTICE

- - - - - - -

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
WITH RESPECT TO THE STABILIZATION OF IRAQ

On May 22, 2003, by Executive Order 13303, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the continued reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

The obstacles to the continued reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13438 of July 17, 2007, must continue in effect beyond May 22, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq declared in Executive Order 13303.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
     May 17, 2013.




Why is a US president issuing declarations -- national emergency ones -- about the supposed 'free' Iraq?  Oh, that's right.  It's not really free of the US.


RECOMMENDED:

• Iraq snapshot
• 69 dead as violence slams Iraq
• Birth defects in Iraq
• Hejira
• Barack extends 'national emergecy' in Iraq
• I Hate The War

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: The US press has got to start paying at...
• TV: How To Kill A Show With A Retool
• Report on Congress
• The Sad, Sad, Sad CJR
• Democracy Now: The Whore and Piss Report
• Shame of the Week
• About that MSM Congressional hearing 'reporting' (...
• Senator Murray on the need for the "Combating Mili...
• Drone base picketed (Ellie Dorritie, WW)
• Highlights

Cedric's Big Mix

He Must Need An Elderly Woman

2 days ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT A NEW PLAN - WELL A PLAN!

2 days ago