Suddenly there seems to be a mad dash to expose the scandals of the Obamanation Administration. The question is why.
posted at 10:41 am on May 21, 2013 by Allahpundit
Via the Chris Stigall Show and WPHT in Philadelphia. Two weeks ago, this wouldn’t have been worth posting; Attkisson herself, I suspect, wouldn’t have mentioned it publicly. Even if she’s right about something fishy going on, there are other plausible culprits besides the U.S. government when it comes to reporters’ computers being infiltrated. Two weeks later, though, knowing now that the DOJ was willing to order a dragnet of AP reporters’ phone records and actually read James Rosen’s e-mails, there’s no way around the obvious suspicion. If the feds were willing to monitor Rosen and the AP in the name of cracking down on leakers, why wouldn’t they monitor the one reporter from non-Fox big media who’s done more digging on Fast and Furious and Benghazi than anyone else?
Attkisson told Laura Ingraham in October 2011 that a White House official had screamed and cursed at her for her reporting. The DOJ wasn’t happy either:
I’m certainly not the one to make the case for DOJ and White House about what I’m doing wrong. They will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.
Which government sources were aiding and abetting this “unreasonable” reporter? There was one obvious way to find out. Any comment, DOJ?
posted at 12:41 pm on May 21, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
How often do we see Kirsten Powers, Eugene Robinson, and Brit Hume agree on a major issue? Not often, but when the government violates the First Amendment and in particular on reporting, probably more often than not. Let’s start with the least surprising criticism, which comes from Brit Hume, former Fox anchor and colleague of James Rosen, who was investigated as a co-conspirator in an espionage case for doing what reporters in Washington do all the time. Hume argues that the Obama administration’s actions speak a lot louder than their words about respecting the freedom of the press:
“In the matter of Fox News correspondent James Rosen, the Justice Department has gone where federal prosecutors have rarely if ever gone before: To obtain a search warrant for Rosen’s personal emails they claimed to a federal court that by doing what journalists do, which is to try to ferret out secrets of government and report them, Rosen has committed a crime. Indeed they describe how he cultivated a State Department official as a source, set up a confidential method of communicating with him, flattered him, spoke to him on the phone — gasp — and asked him to provide information about State Department actions and intelligence on a foreign country now identified as North Korea.”
“All this, says the FBI in a 36-page affidavit is in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to divulge classified information,” Hume continued. “Did Rosen do this to help an enemy? The FBI makes no such claim. Instead, it cites an email in which Rosen tells his source, quote, ‘I want to report authoritatively and ahead of the competition on new initiatives or shifts in U.S. policy, events on the ground and what intelligence is picking up.’ Oh, heaven forbid. The president and his attorney general can recite all the platitudes they like about their respect for press freedom and the need for investigative reporting. But this FBI affidavit contradicts them all.” …
“The government has a right indeed, arguably, a duty to protect the nation’s secrets, some of which are more secret than they ought to be,” Hume said. “But that aside, there are legitimate national security secrets that is the government’s job to protect. And when they leak out, the government has a right and a duty to investigate. But what the government has traditionally done in the past is to investigate the leaker and not, if you will, the leakee. That provides the balance between the government’s job to find out what happened and the press’ right to pursue information. That’s the way it’s been done before. That’s the way it seemed to have been going up until now. But it seems to me tonight there is reason to doubt that that is the approach being taken by this administration.”
Pay very careful attention to this one, because this is what it’s really all about.
ABC News source stands by reference to State Dept in leaked Benghazi talking points emails — White House defenders get the controversy they want (Update – Stephen Hayes stands by his reporting as well)
Jake Tapper reports that the White House is disputing that the Benghazi talking points were edited in the way ABC News and The Weekly Standard presented them, leading to charges that the emails were doctored. The ABC News source is standing by the leaked emails.
Based on Jonathan Karl’s updated report (quoted below), it looks like the White House played Tapper to create a controversy by releasing just one in a chain of emails. Regardless of how it turns out, this provides the dodge White House defenders were looking for, and they are relishing it.
The White House does not deny that the talking points were edited, and we all can see that important points — such as prior threats and the al-Qaeda involvement — were removed, and that the focus shifted to the video by the time Susan Rice used them.
There it is right there. No, it isn’t as simple as poor Jake Tapper being payed as a stooge. It’s the entire Fifth Column Treasonous Media and the Professional Blogging Class being played by the Whitehouse as stooges. The purpose is very simple, deflect, distract and distance.
The 2014 elections are 18 months away, make these scandals old news by the mid-term elections and minimize the damage to the Democrat’s running for re-election. The various Democrat candidates need time to distance themselves from the Obama Administration. These leaks are being made now specifically for that purpose. It’s a calculated risk, one with the very real possibility of backfiring on the Democrats, but if it works as planned, the Democrats hold on to the Seats and perhaps even make gains in the house.
The Democrats have a complicit Fifth Column Treasonous Media as allies to help pull this off. What they are betting is, that none of these Obama Administration scandals have the incubation period of the Watergate Scandal. 18 months is an entire lifetime in politics, few scandals live that long, in 18 months the pubic can and usually does grow bored, tired and apathetic.
The Democrat Party is betting on this happening and they have the Fifth Column Treasonous Media as active co-conspirators and the the fools in the Professional Blogging Class as useful idiots to ensure that their plan works.