GOP helped kill legislation sponsored by Obama that would have protected the AP

[Straw Man]

So plenty of hypocrisy on both right and left but quite likely no laws were broken so just more crying from Repubs when something that had previously opposed when their guy was POTUS that now comes back to haunt them

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/gop-congressmen-killed-a-media-shield-law-that-wou-4xje

Darrell Issa is outraged that the Department of Justice secretly obtained phone records through a subpoena of the AP's telecommunications provider. He's right to condemn the action, but as nycsouthpaw points out, it's worth remembering that Issa voted against legislation that would have protected the AP:

Issa was one of 21 House members who opposed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, a measure that would have forbidden federal investigators from compelling journalists to give evidence without first obtaining a court order. The bill included a section that specifically forbid subpoenaing journalists’ phone records from “communication service providers” to the same extent that the law protected the journalists themselves.

The legislation passed the House, but it was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate and opposed by the Bush Administration. Barack Obama, at the time a U.S. Senator, didn't vote on the bill, but was a co-sponsor. So you have a situation where Issa and Senate Republicans opposed legislation that would have prevented a government action they now decry, and you have a president who supported the legislation but whose administration is now responsible for taking the actions his legislation was supposed to prevent.
Thus far, the president hasn't addressed the DOJ's actions. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to take a neutral posture, saying that the White House was unaware of the subpoena until the AP announced it yesterday and referring all questions to the DOJ.

Given the president's support for the press shield legislation in the Senate, he's at risk of being as hypocritical on this issue as Issa and most Senate Republicans—without having the added virtue of being right. But if he wasn't involved in the decision to subpoena the records, he could help make up for the government's overreach not only by saying it was wrong to subpoena copies of AP phone records, but also by harnessing the GOP's new civil libertarian streak to push through the legislation that they killed just a few short years ago.

[Fury]

Taking his talking points from Media Mutters. Not surprised.

Too bad this was already DESTROYED by NBC's Chuck Todd.




During the press conference, NBC News’ Chuck Todd got into a spirited debate with Carney over proposed legislation to protect journalists — legislation that the reporter argued would have prevented the most recent incident surrounding the AP.

After initially supporting federal shield laws before becoming president, Todd claimed that Obama inevitably killed the Free Flow of Information Act, which would have protected journalists from situations like we see developing this week between the AP and the administration. Here’s a transcript of the spirited debate between Todd and Carney — one that explains the overarching issues at length:

Todd: You keep talking about then Sen. Obama supported a certain piece of legislation that, in fact, as president he killed that piece of legislation in October of 2009 — and made it so that the protections he supported, having judicial review … there was an opportunity to have this bill passed … and he said the White House had problems with it and he killed it.

Carney: First of all, you’re talking about separate pieces of legislation and a legislative history that bears a little more looking into. The president’s position on this is what it was as a senator. But the fact is I cannot then appropriately apply his support for that measure –

Todd: If he supported that piece of legislation, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today because he supported a judicial review that seemed to settle this –

Carney: And what happened to it in 2007?

Todd: I’m asking you what happen in 2009 when he was president of the United States.

Carney: The legislative history here is a little more complicated that you represent.

Todd: Who cares about 2010, we know what he said on the campaign trail in 2008 in front of the Associated Press when it came to this issue. He had a chance to support this and make this bill happen … The admin said that essentially the president changed his position because of certain things on national security. Can you explain why?

Carney: Broadly speaking, the president does support the ability of journalists in an unfettered way to pursue investigative journalism. He believes we have to find a balance between that goal –

Todd: …He believed it in ’08, but he didn’t believe it once he was president. [...]





BOOM! Dems had complete control of congress and could have passed this had Obama not killed it himself. Now fuck off.

[Straw Man]

^^^^^^

like I said in my first post

plenty of hypocrisy to go around on BOTH sides

Doesn't change the fact that Repubs filibustered this in 2007 so how can the very same people then bitch about it now?

Also doesn't change the fact that it's quite likely that no laws were broken

[Fury]

^^^^^^

like I said in my first post

plenty of hypocrisy to go around on BOTH sides

Doesn't change the fact that Repubs filibustered this in 2007 so how can the very same people then bitch about it now?

Also doesn't change the fact that it's quite likely that no laws were broken

What they did in 2007 doesn't matter. Obama killed it and then exploited the opportunity.

No one except leftists trying to make excuses for Nixon Obama care about what the GOP did in 2007.


Obama had a chance to pass this and he killed it HIMSELF.

[GigantorX]

What they did in 2007 doesn't matter. Obama killed it and then exploited the opportunity.

No one except leftists trying to make excuses for Nixon Obama care about what the GOP did in 2007.


Obama had a chance to pass this and he killed it HIMSELF.

It was Democrats in all three branches, correct? If that is so, then the bill should have passed.

It didn't.

[dario73]

^^^^^^

like I said in my first post

plenty of hypocrisy to go around on BOTH sides

Doesn't change the fact that Repubs filibustered this in 2007 so how can the very same people then bitch about it now?

Also doesn't change the fact that it's quite likely that no laws were broken

No, the entire blame falls on the demotwats.

Fury explained it to you in a very simple manner. Lets try again.

Read closely:
Dems had complete control of congress and could have passed this had Obama not killed it himself.

[Straw Man]

No, the entire blame falls on the demotwats.

Fury explained it to you in a very simple manner. Lets try again.

Read closely:
Dems had complete control of congress and could have passed this had Obama not killed it himself.

when did I say that didn't happen

what I've pointed out is that Repubs have no reason to complain since they opposed it as well when their guy was POTUS

no laws were broken so just a bunch of phony outrage from Repubs and certainly no shortage of hypocrisy on all sides

[Soul Crusher]

when did I say that didn't happen

what I've pointed out is that Repubs have no reason to complain since they opposed it as well when their guy was POTUS

no laws were broken so just a bunch of phony outrage from Repubs and certainly no shortage of hypocrisy on all sides

 

[Straw Man]

piss and moan all you want but it doesn't change anything I said

all are facts

[Soul Crusher]

piss and moan all you want but it doesn't change anything I said

all are facts

How would obama have protected it when he was the one who killed it and watered down so much it was meaningless and still had the national security exemption he used to justify this?   

[dario73]

when did I say that didn't happen

what I've pointed out is that Repubs have no reason to complain since they opposed it as well when their guy was POTUS

no laws were broken so just a bunch of phony outrage from Repubs and certainly no shortage of hypocrisy on all sides

OH, you mean in the same way that Obama the clown should not complain about the sequester.

[Straw Man]

How would obama have protected it when he was the one who killed it and watered down so much it was meaningless and still had the national security exemption he used to justify this?   

feel free to point out anything I've written which is not a fact

[Soul Crusher]

feel free to point out anything I've written which is not a fact

What matters are ACTIONS not words.  When obama had a chance to act  - he did not do as he said he would.  What obama says and does are very often the exact opposite. 

[Straw Man]

What matters are ACTIONS not words.  When obama had a chance to act  - he did not do as he said he would.  What obama says and does are very often the exact opposite. 

so you agree then that nothing I've said is false

let's review

both Obama and Repubs are hypocrites

no laws were broken

[dario73]

Feel free to point out why when Democrats had control of Congress they did not pass a similar legislation.

If they felt so strongly about it, why didn't Obama make it an issue in 2009?

This is so stupid.

In your demented mind the GOP is excluded from making an issue of what the DOJ did, yet you give Obama a pass when he blamed the GOP for the sequester. The same policy he supported.

[whork]

So plenty of hypocrisy on both right and left but quite likely no laws were broken so just more crying from Repubs when something that had previously opposed when their guy was POTUS that now comes back to haunt them

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/gop-congressmen-killed-a-media-shield-law-that-wou-4xje

Im with the republicans on this one.

Obama is the president it he owns this more than the GOP.

[Straw Man]

Im with the republicans on this one.

Obama is the president it he owns this more than the GOP.

that's fine but like I've said it's almost certain that no laws were broken so all they got are a bunch of hurt feelings and phony indignation

[dario73]

The reason cited by many Republicans was national security. They wanted prosecutors to have the ability to get those records when faced with such situation.

The problem with Obama's DOJ is that it uses national security as an excuse to get such records when no such threat exists. GOP killing the measure in 2007 is not the same as GOP endorsing abuse of power by the DOJ.

[Straw Man]

The reason cited by many Republicans was national security. They wanted prosecutors to have the ability to get those records when faced with such situation.

The problem with Obama's DOJ is that it uses national security as an excuse to get such records when no such threat exists. GOP killing the measure in 2007 is not the same as GOP endorsing abuse of power by the DOJ.

I assume you're aware of the alleged national security issue that prompted the subpoena for the phone records

here is what the AP speculates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/heres-the-story-the-ap-suspects-led-to-sweeping-justice-dept-subpoena/

[Soul Crusher]

I assume you're aware of the alleged national security issue that prompted the subpoena for the phone records

here is what the AP speculates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/heres-the-story-the-ap-suspects-led-to-sweeping-justice-dept-subpoena/

Nonsense.  This was about a story the AP was working weith them on as it was and had already happened. 

Additionally, how on the one hand can DOJ argue this was so important and so crucial blah blah and then Holder says he had no idea about it. 


Please. 

[Straw Man]

Nonsense.  This was about a story the AP was working weith them on as it was and had already happened. 

Additionally, how on the one hand can DOJ argue this was so important and so crucial blah blah and then Holder says he had no idea about it. 


Please. 

did you read the link with info directly from the AP

where is your link to support your claim?

[Soul Crusher]

did you read the link with info directly from the AP

where is your link to support your claim?

Yes - it was about the story in Yemen.  AP was working w DOJ to hold back the story and agreed not to run it.  DOJ completely hood winked them and never even gave them the chance to respond to the subpoena - DOJ just simply swooped in like jackals on this. 

[blacken700]

did you read the link with info directly from the AP

where is your link to support your claim?

im sure his sources told him 

[whork]

that's fine but like I've said it's almost certain that no laws were broken so all they got are a bunch of hurt feelings and phony indignation

Yup.

[Straw Man]

Yes - it was about the story in Yemen.  AP was working w DOJ to hold back the story and agreed not to run it.  DOJ completely hood winked them and never even gave them the chance to respond to the subpoena - DOJ just simply swooped in like jackals on this. 

so where you link ?