Obama Admin Also Spied on JOURNALISTS. A Special FISA Was Developed Just For Them. :-)

a reply to: introvert

There's a difference between the guidelines laid out in these memos and the Media Guidelines, which were rules laid out by the DOJ in 2014 that laid down guidelines for obtaining information from journalists. The Media Guidelines were designed to make it harder for the DOJ to obtain information from journalists. These guidelines don't apply to FISA and NSLs. These have their own standards for justification of obtaining information which are less stringent than the Media Guidelines.

a reply to: introvert

Sorry, those aren't the media guidelines. Try again. Those are fisa guidelines that until now were secret and are less stringent than the public media guidelines.

Was this before or after Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labelling one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting, and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

We could probably summarize the evolution on how this all happened with the James Risen vs James Rosen.

The DOJ tried making James Risen flip on his CIA source that the US had plans to stop Iran from developing nukes, they did this by threatening him with jail time if he didn't reveal his source.

James Risen got emails and other communications taken from him so they could just find it themselves, my guess was through FISA. He said his source was from CIA agent(s) within North Korea, the story was on North Korea, which probably was one of the precedence building cases on working in FISA warrants with journalists.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

This is after that.

They issued guidelines after that fiasco. They then used fisa to circumvent the guidelines.

What I want is an independent non partisan group to look into the matter and see how these fisa warrants were used and not have an agenda and be willing to give the people the actual truth.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What I want is an independent non partisan group to look into the matter and see how these fisa warrants were used and not have an agenda and be willing to give the people the actual truth.

One of the sanest requests I've heard surrounding this discussion since it began.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Playing politics is destroying this country.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

This is after that.

They issued guidelines after that fiasco. They then used fisa to circumvent the guidelines.

Wow.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I am in total agreement with you that this is an issue that goes far beyond Obama.

It was abused by past presidents, and could be by current or future ones.

My concern is that we knew that Obama was going after sources and the press at unprecedented rates, yet the media was largely silent.

Now we dont know if trump is doing the same (if he is it would be just as egregious) yet the media has done a seemingly 180 and are enraged at trumps words criticizing the press.

Lets leads me to believe that their interests in a free press may again wane once trump is out of office, and it will be back to business as usual.

That is why I have been arguing against "deep state" abuse in various forms.

Some people, including many in the media, ignore or make excuses for when an official they like abuses this power. My argument is always be careful, because you may not like the next person, and they may use that same abuse.

That is why we should fight against policies like spying on the press BEFORE it is used by trump or anyone else.

Well said. These morons can’t even keep their conspiracies in order. Smh...a reply to: MiddleInsite

a reply to: Grambler

The fact the media isn't silenced is indicative of Trump not doing this. If he is I want it stopped.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Playing politics is destroying this country.

Absolutely.

Both sides commit the same wrong doings while veiling it under "they do/did it worse".

The second partisanship muddies a conversation, it's done. The root is rarely discussed, people just pick their side and argue to protect that side's image or harm the other's.

originally posted by: soundguy
Well said. These morons can’t even keep their conspiracies in order. Smh...a reply to: MiddleInsite

No conspiracy. This is fact.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It's only wrong when the other guys do it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

The fact the media isn't silenced is indicative of Trump not doing this. If he is I want it stopped.

Which I was so surprised people wanted the government to forcefully get the name of the "insider" who wrote the NYT op-ed.

There was nothing classified in it, so it would have been a very dangerous precedence to set, and even scarier citizens were behind it and even calling for it.

dbl

dbl

originally posted by: soundguy
Well said. These morons can’t even keep their conspiracies in order. Smh...a reply to: MiddleInsite

This is citizens having a discussion on how to hold our government accountable to the law. Some are playing partisan in here (you appear to be one), but many are just dealing with the meat.

If you want the government to have absolute power to illegally obtain information from journalists, I'd ask you take that mentality to a country that doesn't have laws to protect the people from the government. They'll take you in with open arms.

a reply to: Grambler

Some people, including many in the media, ignore or make excuses for when an official they like abuses this power. My argument is always be careful, because you may not like the next person, and they may use that same abuse.

It depends on who we're talking about. I've found I can trust individual journalists over outlets as a whole. Obviously most of these are under corporate ownership, but further more they all need ratings, which can delude the quality of content.

The media outlets as a whole in many cases are owned by a parent company who has a lot of skin in the game for the government to pass laws in their favor.

Why would we expect The Washington Post to report fairly on Trump when he's critical of Amazon, or truthfully on Amazon/Jeff Bezos when he owns them? That wouldn't justify Trump going after WaPo, just adding nuance to this very complicated situation we have in this country right now.