"... including by asking third parties, like phone and email companies, to turn over their data, or to force them to testify about their sources. But that limit is in a rule issued by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. Should Mr. Trump’s attorney general rescind that regulation, the F.B.I. would be freed to go after reporters’ information. Internal guidelines also flatly ban investigating someone on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment. And there are strict limits around opening investigations into members of Congress or reporters. But an F.B.I. director, especially if there is a like-minded attorney general, could interpret those limits so narrowly as to make them meaningless, or even throw them out. Mr. Patel has also called for using the Justice Department more aggressively to uncover who in the government is providing information to news reporters, and said that leakers should be prosecuted. He wrote in his book that all federal employees should be forced to submit to monthly scans of their devices 'to determine who has improperly transferred classified information, including to the press.'..."
From "Kash Patel Has Plan to Remake the F.B.I. Into a Tool of Trump/President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the F.B.I. has called for firing the agency’s top officials, shutting down its Washington headquarters and prosecuting journalists" (NYT).
December 4, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
88 comments:
This warms my heart this morning, watching the leftie rats scramble because the exterminator is here. No matter it won’t amount to anything. Life is all small wins…
Sounds good. Let's give it a try!
It’s behind a paywall, so all I see is Althouse’s excerpt, which is wall to wall “coulds” and “maybes,”
Ask James O'Keefe how that worked out for him.
Garland and Wray have already demonstrated a pretty narrow interpretation of not prosecuting First Amendment activities.
In my opinion, congresspeople should be more susceptible to investigation than the average schmoe, not less. In any event, bear in mind that the current "restrictions" are merely internal guidelines from the most recent political appointee, and the country survived for more than 200 years before they were put in place.
Irks me when reporters or any one class of people get more protections of constitutional rights than others.
.."The F.B.I. would be freed to go after reporters’ information." They would also be free to be told to come back with a warrant.
It's a shame when it seems there's somebody that's a good fit for a job and is hated by all the right people and then there's always something that throws up a red flag the size of the side of a barn. Like... Kash posting an ad and link to a snake-oil scam "Spike Protein Recovery System" on Truth Social https://truthsocial.com/@Kash/posts/112264956311023145 . I can't get past that. "Are you immune to the shedders?" WTF? Unless he was making fun of it (I tried setting up an account so I could read the rest of the thread, but they want a phone number).
It seems to me that what the NYT describes is a very strong argument for shutting down the FBI, or at a minimum significantly limiting its powers. No agency, in particular no agency which has no Constitutional foundation, should have that sort of power.
But let's not shut it down until we use it to clean out the viper's nest.
"There are strict limits around opening investigations into members of Congress or reporters ..."
One of these things is NOT like the other. Since when do members of Congress have the privilege of not being investigated?
Remember ABSCAM? The FBI set up a bribery honey pot and caught on video about 50% of the baited Congressmen stuffing their coat pockets with cash money in a hotel room full of Arab men.
That operation was run in 1978 ... nearly half a century ago.
The FBI has never run any other investigations targeting corrupt Congressmen since.
All Times haters who still want to occasionally look over the wall use archive.today
Remember, you're not a "reporter" unless you have received MSM(D) blessing.
Is Catherine Herridge mentioned in the article?
There are some legitimate 1st Amendment concerns lurking around in all of the vague "if"s and "should"s. But my initial impression is that the Times is worried that the investigation will expose how much they've been in bed with the regime.
Our new norms what mooted the old norms are the now muh norms because starry de-ice is…
"Strict limits." "Flat ban." Bullshit. Ask Sharyl Attkisson or James Rosen about their experience with Obama's FBI.
Republicans keep getting accused of jailing reporters.
So far, only Obama has been the one who did that. And no one cares.
Biden gets an honorable mention for going way past jailing and simply censoring all of it. But again, no one cared when it happened. Not even the so-called journalists.
There is no justification for giving journalists special protection—we’re all supposed to be equal. And regularly reviewing the equipment employees use—why aren’t they doing that already? Every private company reserves the right to control and monitor their own equipment.
I’d support protection for whistleblowers (people who publicly reveal illegal or dangerous behaviour AFTER exhausting internal channels), but leakers are a different story altogether. They should be prosecuted.
Does it hurt you that gun owners get special rights enumerated in the Constitution as well? A native born Americans only they can become president that must be a pretty irritating clause in the Constitution. How about criminals? They are singled out for a ton of constitutional protections oh my goodness.
Thank goodness the Trump administration is much less fascist than his most ardent supporters here on Althouse
All the Russia hoax enablers too many to count
Dumb response. Non-gun-owners still have the right to bear arms, they simply choose not to use that right. Much in the way that you and I have the right to free speech but may opt to say nothing (hint hint).
I've already voted for Trump. You don't have to sell me on him.
Anyway, to get serious. As others have noted, the only reporters that got a pass on being investigated were the ones that supported the regime. Not to mention the retaliation against whistleblowers.
In any event, I would be a lot more concerned about threats against the free press if they weren't lying and spinning all the time.
Two issues are discussed sequentially in order to hide that they are different.
One deals with limits on investigating the press and is hypothetical.
The second is dealing with leaks and describes an actual statement by Patel.
I’m in favor of press protections. I’m also in favor of prosecuting leakers. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Yes, equality before the law is a very fascist idea. So much better that we return to the progressive ideal of special favors for favored people.
Anything that leaves the bureau's funding and current structure intact short of massive overhaul or elimination is a cop out. Weak sauce.
Good. Journalists deserve no more nor less protections than everyone else. Let’s eliminate all forms of tenure. They’re corrupting.
Sacred norms aren't very sacred if they are selectively (and consistently) applied only in one direction by "wingmen" who only seem to have a left wing.
Indeed. Academicians and Health Department heads and unelected, unappointed nonprofits too, if they bothered to look at the careful efforts to ignore their ill-gotten esteem.
Counterpoint: if I am served a subpoena I can go to court and quash it. If the FBI operates on a wink and a nod in Facebook's darkrooms, there is no process for me to vindicate my rights. Send a fucking subpoena if you want to snoop!
It seems like only yesterday:
“The Obama administration used the 1917 Espionage Act with unprecedented vigor, prosecuting more people under that law for leaking sensitive information to the public than all previous administrations combined. Obama’s Justice Department dug into confidential communications between news organizations and their sources as part of that effort.
“In 2013 the Obama administration obtained the records of 20 Associated Press office phone lines and reporters’ home and cell phones, seizing them without notice . . .
“Obama’s Justice Department also secretly dogged Fox News journalist James Rosen, getting his phone records, tracking his arrivals and departures at the State Department through his security-badge use, obtaining a search warrant to see his personal emails and naming him as a possible criminal conspirator in the investigation of a news leak.”
I think we can all agree we hate it when state power is used against us and love it when state power is used against them. Fortunately we’re all Americans so it’s all moot, right?
Poor points, Howard. Make an argument for them. And regarding leadership, compare with most first-world democracies, please, and explain why this is so. Our gun laws remain unique because of the relative size of our criminal underclass, and as a break-in rapist’s victim, I think that’s justification enough. Surrounded by scores of unknown illegal immigrants, including some arrested for rape and burglary (often incompleted rape) since I moved here, I keep my husband’s gun next to the bed when he’s away. Wouldn’t you want your wife to do so? Of course, women in Europe and Britain quickly learned this lesson too. I guess you’ve never been sexually tortured by a protected minority or illegal. I guess you don’t know how effective sex offender registries were, until the latest waves of illegals flooding the country destroyed their effectiveness.
The women you care about will learn, if they don’t already know. You do not understand and never will know the fear I know. Thanks, Founders.
It is a biased system the Garland rules make- if I get a leak from the Department of Defense and put it up on twitter, the DoJ gets to subpoena my devices since the rule doesn't cover me. If the leak goes to the NYTimes and they publish it on twitter, the DoJ doesn't subpoena their devices. Explain to me how that is just?
What’s your response to Tim, Howard? How do you define a journalist, and what the hell makes them special cases? It does not improve their credibility or honesty.
Setting aside that Obama is a fascist, he wasn’t being one when he did this, unless he did it selectively. Excellent point.
I was wondering that, too. She's been very brave fighting both her employer and the Feds.
Once again, the Progressive Democrats cry out in terror that some disgusting, evil plot they've already thought up, but were not yet ready to spring on American society, might also occur to the incoming administration. The dark night of fascism is coming in hot, and landing unerringly on target.
A guy who promoted supplements intended to protect from COVID vaccine "shedders" is probably not the best choice for promoting integrity at the FBI.
I didn't read the article. I don't want to burn my opinion with the bias of knowledge. It seems to me that everything said about the filibuster rule applies here. If you give the FBI more power, they will use more power. The people with that power will not always be people that your like and they will not always use that power against people you dislike.
all federal employees should be forced to submit to monthly scans of their devices 'to determine who has improperly transferred classified information
Why is this a bad thing?
Many on D-MSNBC - including Maddow - should be prosecuted. They knowingly lied for over 3 years.
Don't forget how he spied on Sheryl Attkisson too.
A previous generation of FBI agents didn't like Commies or civil rights activists. It is the opinion of most people on the left that they used their powers in a biased way against people they didn't like. I don't understand why it's so hard for lefties to now understand why a current generation of FBI agents have used their powers inappropriately against MAGA Republicans. They don't like Magas and are biased against them.....Bias is hard wired into the human brain. It can't be eliminated. The best you can hope for is to sometimes restrain it.
It hasn't come to that yet. This is just speculation about what Trump and Patel could do. It's designed to scare Times readers. I note that Trump didn't go after reporters in his first term -- not in legal terms. He liked toying with the media and calling journalists names and got it out of his system. They in turn were or pretended to be offended and fearful and enjoyed the high ratings and readership they enjoyed in the Trump years. I'll give the devil his due and note that the Biden administration also doesn't appear to have gone after reporters in the way that Obama and previous presidents have. If we do see Trump or some future president start indicting reporters, we'll see how people on the right and left react to that.
Gullible Althouse believes anything asserted by the New York Times. She might instead want to read up on the travails of Catherine Herridge.
Joe had too much to lose by going after the press, and so did his handlers.
Right, because they violated the law against saying wrong things.
Crickets still, Howard? Or are you satisfied with how many rakes you've been stepping on in this comments section?
Wait, I thought we were all in favor of the government harassing journalists.
Why? Be specific.
Two entirely different things. Extra-judicial snooping versus serving a subpoena.
Because he's either a scammer or stupid.
Toxoplasmosis is a terrible thing.
And Sharyl Atkisson who's system was hacked by the Feds, who stole her work in progress.
In the world I would like to live in, journalists would be informing the public about incompetence and corruption in our government. We do not live in that world. We live in a world in which journalists ignore malfeasance by one party, and actively fabricate it for the other (see Russia! Russia! Russia!). Journalists have shredded any "revealers of truth" protections they lay claim to.
I think it's unfair to condemn an entire nominee based on a single slip up.
++
The press has never been about the truth. Newspapers have always had an angle many times much sharper than now. Maybe reconsider the crybaby angle that the ardent Trump supporters believe is the key to success. I thought the second amendment was supposed to protect the first amendment. See, this is why some of us would like to see the militia more well regulated.
NYT and MSNBC are always talking about "countering disinformation" like that's a good thing. But they won't countenance any means to achieve that goal except silencing everyone but themselves. When a Democrat talks about "countering disinformation, what he really means is his greed for a monopoly grip on the marketplace of ideas reserved exclusively for himself and those he approves of.
No-no! There is a lie nestled in there among those "coulds" and "maybes". Patel wants to prosecute government employees who leak classified information. The NYT says he wants to "prosecute journalists".
Lying liars lie and lie!
Doo-dah! Doo-dah!
Perhaps they should go even further. Government employee phones are always being mysteriously "wiped". Perhaps these devices should be archived to a central server in real-time.
The idea that J. Edgar Hoover was reluctant to investigate the activities of congressmen would be laughable, were it not for the appalling possibility that the scurrilous, half-educated scribblers at NYT may actually believe it.
"why it's so hard for lefties to now understand why a current generation of FBI agents have used their powers inappropriately against MAGA Republicans."
They understand. They're just not honest people.
Howard...
Becoming president isn't a constitutional right.
tommyesq is right about the 2nd.
5th and 8th applies to everyone too, regardless if one is choosing to enjoy its benefits or not. In this case, I'll guess even non citizens are covered, unlike the 2nd. Some criminals also forfeit the 2nd.
I'll concede that my considering the "press" in the 1st is a machine and not a profession is most likely incorrect in the law. But limiting a right to a nebulous profession is morally wrong (and worth going to war over - if it comes to it). No one person has more rights than another. That's the whole point.
It is a little unfair. That's why I tried (a bit) to see if he followed up with any comments. Maybe he thought it was funny. Just posting a link doesn't necessarily imply endorsement. If one is just Joe Schmo nobody gives a damn. If you're anxious to accept a job as head honcho at the FBI, pay somebody to clear that shit up. Maybe he will. Maybe he doesn't even remember and he will be asked about it. For now, it's bad and it's out there. It remains...
One problem with leakers is they don't leak "the truth" they leak tidbits designed to create the illusion of truth.
Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer went to Prague.
Remember that story? The newspaper stood behind it.
I remember that. And I remember that a respectable (British? Scottish?) businessman named Michael Cohen, no relation, said he was in Prague that very weekend, so it appears someone was searching passenger lists and got a false positive - not surprising when first and last names are both quite common.
Former Trump administration official Kash Patel filed a lawsuit last week over the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI’s “politically motivated” effort to obtain a subpoena for his personal email account data in 2017.
Patel, who at the time was the investigator leading the House Intelligence Committee’s probe into FBI and DOJ conduct in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, alleges the DOJ violated separation of powers and his Fourth Amendment rights when it sought a subpoena of his personal email account in 2017. The lawsuit names seven individuals who were officials at the time, including FBI Director Chris Wray and former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu, as defendants.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/18/politically-motivated-former-trump-official-kash-patel-sues-over-doj-subpoena-of-his-personal-email-account-data/
DOJ Spied On Devin Nunes Staff (guess who) During Russia Hoax, Subpoenas Show
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/14/doj-spied-on-devin-nunes-staff-during-russia-hoax-subpoenas-show/
I'd just like to remind everyone that the Department of Justice has been politicized to go after political enemies, according to the President of the United States, who thusfar has refused to fire the man who has politicized the Department of Justice to go after political enemies ... Merrick Garland.
Biden hired him. And Biden refuses to fire him, despite Garland running roughshod over Americans including the President's own offspring.
At the behest of CBS News, which typed up some fake memos to try to rig the 2004 election.
The entire FBI organization was created SOLELY to get dirt on US Congressmen to blackmail them into voting for Deep State budgets.
"It's not just. It is unjust. Now what are you prepared to do? - Jimmy Malone
Keystroke logging software should be used on all government computers.
All uses of electronic communication devices by the government should be recorded.
They have nothing to hide, right?
Democrats are doing a lot of pre-gaslighting. Sad for them, Trump 2.0 isn't going to be burdened by what has been.
“Because freedom of the press requires that members of the news media have the freedom to investigate and report the news, the new regulations are intended to provide enhanced protection to members of the news media from certain law enforcement tools and actions that might unreasonably impair news gathering.”
- Merrick Garland
"No one is above the law."
- Also Merrick Garland
Internal guidelines also flatly ban investigating someone on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
You mean like protesting at a school board meeting, or protesting abortion?
The Dems spent 4 years acting like the FBI & DoJ would never again be controlled by anyone who disagrees with them. They lost. Now it's time to do to every single one of them what they did to some of us.
Because that's the only way you keep people from abusing power: by letting them know it will come back to haunt them
Antifa
BLM
The in the tank Press
Everyone at the FBI / DoJ / IRS who did the bidding of the Left
It's time to start destroying lives, and keep on doing it until every single top Democrat goes on public record that what the Obama & Biden Admins did what corrupt, evil, and wrong, and join in punishing everyone who had a hand in doing it.
See: Lois Lerner, everyone at the FBI who was part of CrossFire Hurricane, etc.
We have 12 years to make the Dems pay, but we need to start on Jan 20
J6 Defendants?
Howard would have gleefully attacked the revolutionary era pamphleteers for daring to put their views out without King George III approval.
Likely not passenger lists, but doing “about” searches of NSA databases (necessarily including Customs records) using the FBI’s interface to those databases. This abuse was enabled by Obama DAG Sally Yates, and terminated by NSA Director Adm Rogers in May/June of 2016. It is very likely that the search for information about Michael Cohen found the outgoing and returning Customs records were found. The mistake about the wrong Michael Cohen isn’t made by Customs, etc, because they invariably have additional information, such as SS# or passport#, that can be used to disambiguate different people with the same names.
Journalists have an exalted sense of self importance. Prosecute them for what, aggravated stupidity?
Does it hurt you that gun owners get special rights enumerated in the Constitution as well?
Could you please point out what 'special rights' gun owners have that aren't afforded to everybody else? Thanks.
The crap part about news like this is we can't vote for Trump again.
Then why the fu*k do they claim to do so you DF!
Bruce Hayden: "Likely not passenger lists, but doing “about” searches of NSA databases (necessarily including Customs records) using the FBI’s interface to those databases."
It was Nellie Ohr, wife of FBI dude Bruce Ohr, who was working for Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS, that was accessing the secure databases and simply pulled up a "Michael Cohen" that had traveled to Prague. Nellie, a part of this criminal conspiracy against a duly elected President, did not do her due diligence and added the Micheal Cohen to Prague nonsense to the outline of what would become the "Steele Dossier". This would cause embarrassment later when all the dems and some GOPe-ers were screaming to high heaven that the dossier had been "verified"......and then they found out the Michael Cohen was actually at USC watching his son play baseball when he (Michael) was supposed to be in Prague!
Whoops!
Before that however, Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS, hired by Marc Elias when he worked at Perkins-Coie and was the point person the Hillary campaign hired to advance the BS russia collusion hoax, packaged all the data they had and then handed it to Steele and then paid him handsomely to get more. Much more. They needed more!
And so what did Steele do? He reached out to Danchenko over at the Brookings Institute and Danchenko and his drinking buddies brainstormed additional BS to add to the "dossier", like hookers peeing on beds. And off they went...
"Good. Journalists deserve no more nor less protections than everyone else. "
I am OzzyJournalist, Look upon my works, you Mighty, and dispair!
Post a Comment