AP leak probe, why it matters

The news that the US government secretly monitored phone records of scores of Associated Press (AP) reporters bothers me.


In contrast, the Benghazi “scandal” is a joke, in so far as anyone calling it a “scandal.”

Four Americans died when a mob attacked in Benghazi, Libya.  And whether or not Al Qaeda had a hand in it, it’s absurd to call it a “scandal” and a “cover up” simply because the administration was careful about calling the rather simplistic attack – it was a mob, after all, not a coordinated series of bombs or anything sophisticated – a “terrorist” attack.  And regardless of whether it was “terrorism” in retrospect, you don’t just declare such things willy-nilly at the outset of the investigation into what happened.

There’s also the little point about the email at the basis of the Benghazi “scandal” now being revealed to be a forgery.  That also minimizes the “scandal” potential.


The IRS “scandal” is a little more interesting, but it’s still not clear that there’s any there there, yet.

Previous IRS scandals – Nixon’s comes to mind – were ordered by the president himself.  There’s no such evidence that President Obama was even aware that the IRS was doing anything regarding the Tea Party.

Second, it’s not like this would be the first IRS to target political opponents: Bush’s famously went after the NAACP.  Whether that makes it acceptable is another question.

And finally, and this is the actual test of whether the “scandal” is a scandal, it remains unclear whether Tea Party were groups were targeted for specific partisan reasons, or simply because a lot of them were a bit sketchy (their frequent invocation of Hitler comes to mind, as does their opposition to paying taxes).  Now, the IRS may still have incorrectly singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny of their tax-exempt applications.  But unless anyone finds a political motivation – i.e., IRS employees motivated by a hatred of conservatives – the gun ain’t smoking on this one either.

It’s also worth noting that three liberal groups also faced the IRS’ ire.

One more point.  Republicans do themselves no favors by claiming that the IRS story proves that they must repeal and/or undermine Obamacare.  Using a “scandal” for partisan purposes


The AP brouhaha is another matter.  Any time the government attempts to get the media to divulge their sources, red flags should be raised.  It doesn’t mean the government is necessarily wrong. It does mean that people should pay close attention when the government attempts anything like this.

Eavesdropping via Shutterstock

Eavesdropping via Shutterstock

In this case, the Justice Department was investigating the leak of information surrounding a failed Al Qaeda plot.  DOJ did so by getting the phone records for 20 AP employees, specifically looking at who they were calling.

And it was really worse than that.  These weren’t just 20 reporters.  The phone lines covered included AP bureau lines in the US House, New York, Washington and more.  Those phone lines were potentially used by every reporter in the bureau over a period of months that the US government was keeping track.  So this wasn’t just targeted against specific individuals.

Just as troublesome, a judge never approved it. Under the law, arguably, the Justice Department doesn’t need a judge in order to seize your phone records.  They also don’t need to tell you, until long after if ever.  In this case, one of the biggest complaints the AP has is that the government didn’t even come to them to ask for the records, something the law does require.  Sure, AP would have likely challenged the request in court, but then a judge would have decided the case on the merits.  In this instance, the Justice Department decided on its own in secret that the Justice Department had a need for these documents.

And that’s a bit messed up.

Rachel Maddow interviewed David Schulz, a media attorney now representing AP.   Schulz said that there are certain rules the Justice Department is supposed to follow in these kind of investigations.  Those rules include:

  1.  Government can’t go after reporters’ information unless it is “critical” to an investigation.  So they can’t just launch a fishing expedition.
  2. They can only go after it if there are no alternative sources.
  3. They had to make the information request as narrow as possible.
  4.  Government is supposed to negotiate with the press ahead of time.
domestic privacy eavesdropping spying

Eavesdropping via Shutterstock

Schulz says the regulations were simply ignored.  The facts certainly suggest he has a point.  Tagging general phones lines that could impact 100 AP employees doesn’t sound terribly “narrow.”  And the evasion of the requirement of prior notice took away the press’ right to go to court to not just challenge all of this, but to ensure that DOJ was following the rule of law.

As you can imagine, AP is not amused.  The NYT concurred:

For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, “calls into question the very integrity” of the administration’s policy toward the press

Blogger Marcy Wheeler has an excellent summary of the background, and the concerns surrounding the government’s actions.

eavesdropping spying privacy

Eavesdropping via Shutterstock

As Rachel Maddow and others have noted, if we had a media shield law, media organizations would have protections, including requiring a judge to sign off on these kind of fishing expeditions into media communications.  But as Buzzfeed notes, Republicans in Congress killed the effort to pass that law.

Rachel Maddow has an excellent discussion of, backgrounder on, this issue with AP’s lawyer Schulz from last night’s show – it’s worth a watch:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

58 Responses to “AP leak probe, why it matters”

  1. Tusense96761 says:

    Who are you? I guess not American? When this is all said and done and if we come out of it alive, it won’t be thanks to this reporter. I guess you don’t have to worry about Michael Hastings fate, but you’ll also never be a hero reporter like him. It’s too bad that under the Obama regime that you love so much that just doing an investigative journalism piece brands you a hero. You know why? Because under Obama you risk your life doing it. Take that to your bank when you cash your propaganda paycheck and then move out of our country because you don’t deserve to walk on American soil for not protecting what our founding fathers fought. for. You honestly don’t think you’ll be spared by this evil regime when population control comes in ? Well you won’t but they like you now.

  2. Sweetie says:

    “Any time the government attempts to get the media to divulge their
    sources, red flags should be raised. It doesn’t mean the government is
    necessarily wrong. It does mean that people should pay close attention when the government attempts anything like this.”

    I would prefer specific rules that the government must play by to people paying attention to abusive behavior.

  3. Sweetie says:

    If she were not in the club, she wouldn’t have been given the gig she has now.

  4. Sweetie says:

    She made that abundantly clear with her unabashed cheerleading for the health mandate. It’s historic monumental reform!

  5. Sweetie says:

    We didn’t elect him. He was appointed by the 1%. The election is just theater.

  6. Sweetie says:

    Don’t let the facts get in your way…

  7. citizen_spot says:

    Dog knows they both suckle from the same corporate teats.

  8. Ford Prefect says:

    The point is, a judge never saw DOJs work and it was never approved as such. No warrants. There may not have even been a subpeona.

    This is all extra-judicial. Lastly, the argument isn’t about whether so-and-so was stoopid. It’s about the law, the constitution and whether or not any notion of justice actually exists.

    You clearly don’t give a shit about any of that.

  9. Ford Prefect says:

    I get that. And as POTUS he would hardly be “weak” either. But, he’s not the Golden Boy Who Can Do No Wrong. He also has a real problem with improvised speech at times, which would prove most entertaining at times.

    Besides: if the GOP were able to impeach Obama (which they aren’t), it would weaken the presidency and the Democratic Party more broadly. That would weaken Biden’s position by default.

    But all this is silly anyway. Impeachment isn’t going to happen. At this point, I’d take it over the status quo, but it won’t happen. The establishment takes care of their own, even when they’re in the other party.

  10. Houndentenor says:

    The phone companies have been turning over our records to the government like this for over a decade. if you want to make that legal, then that’s fine by me, but I don’t see how this was against the law. Also, are confidential informants and whistle blowers now stupid enough to use their own cell phone or email account? If I were to do such a thing (not saying that I have) I would have handed someone a printed note on standard paper using a writing implement commonly available. Maybe I’m smarter than they are, but I kind of doubt it.

  11. arcadesproject says:

    Is it possible that Eric Holder is Alberto Gonzalez’s somewhat smarter older brother?

  12. ezpz says:

    No, they didn’t get warrants. They didn’t go through the courts.

  13. karmanot says:

    That’s the scary part.

  14. Houndentenor says:

    This whole thing is bullshit. They justice department got warrants. If they weren’t within the law they shouldn’t have been given the warrants. If we want to change the law, that’s a topic for discussion but pretending that there was illegal activity where there clearly wasn’t is bullshit.

  15. Bill_Perdue says:

    He didn’t seem so weak in 2005 when he was the powerhouse behind a bankruptcy ‘reform’ that aided banks and predatory lenders and applied the screws to consumers. Biden, like all Democrats is an enemy of working people and consumers.

    “The first duty of any senator from Delaware is to do the bidding of the banks and large corporations which use the tiny state as a drop box and legal sanctuary. Biden has never failed his masters in this primary task. Find any bill that sticks it to the ordinary folk on behalf of the Money Power and you’ll likely detect Biden’s hand at work. The bankruptcy act of 2005 was just one sample. In concert with his fellow corporate serf, Senator Tom Carper, Biden blocked all efforts to hinder bankrupt corporations from fleeing from their real locations to the legal sanctuary of Delaware. …the ticket is well balanced, the seesaw with Obama at one end and Biden at the other dead-level on the fulcrum of corporate capital.”

    Biden is also, like the Clintons. the Bushes and Obama, a mad dog warmonger.


  16. Bill_Perdue says:


  17. lynchie says:

    Remember the famous quote—if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

  18. lynchie says:

    Rachael wants to be in the club. You know invited to the LGBT coffee klatch’s. go to the dinners, the wine tastings and play and being a real journalist. They are O apologists and have no connection or an interest in a connection with the average American. They think they are part of the 1%.

  19. Ford Prefect says:

    The difference would be that Biden doesn’t have a cult of personality backing him up, whereas Obama does. He’d be weaker in attacking the common people.

  20. Naja pallida says:

    I’m pretty sure being an Obamabot is MSNBC corporate policy. Their whole evening lineup is Obama administration cheerleaders, who have touted each terrible policy decision after another as the best the President could get.

  21. ronbo says:

    Rachel is mainstream media now. Just because sits to the left of FOX doesn’t mean she will focus on liberal causes. She seems to be just another Obamabot.

  22. Naja pallida says:

    If we do have a race, it’s a race to the bottom. To see who can get away with the most egregious things, before the people finally rise up in outright revolt.

  23. ronbo says:

    From your finger-tips to God’s ears. (If you believe in that sort of thing)
    I’d bet that Obama will double-down on slashing Social Security to secure a “get out of jail free” card with the 1%ers in congress.

  24. Papa Bear says:

    What WAS I thinking?

  25. ronbo says:

    I concur. Corporations DON’T have more protections than citizens. Unless things are really, really screwed up.
    Did we just elect a Democrat who advocates slashing Social Security yet worked hard to keep AND extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires? Things are really, really screwed up.

  26. Naja pallida says:

    Riot? And risk missing an episode of The Bachelor?!

  27. Papa Bear says:

    why — did he have sex with someone?

  28. Naja pallida says:

    The Republicans have tried to nail Obama with a dozen “scandals” since the day he said he was running for President, and every single one was proven to be manufactured nonsense. They refuse to go after him for the real scandals, like unilaterally assassinating US citizens, or illegal wiretapping, or destroying the lives of whistle-blowers, because they want those powers for themselves. They’re not salivating for a real scandal, they’re salivating for a fake one to actually get some real traction.

  29. Papa Bear says:

    and yet, there still aren’t riots in the streets…

  30. BryanDaviss says:

    I make $80/hour from working freelance on my laptop. Before this job i’ve been out of a job for 5 months but last month my payment with bonus was little over $15000 just for working on the laptop for about 5 hours a day. Here’s the site to read more how you can do it too—–>


  31. BeccaM says:

    Exactly my point: Come 2016, they want that power — and all these other unlimited powers — for THEIR president.

  32. BeccaM says:

    It seems to me that ever since 9/11, the executive branch has arrogated to itself all kinds of powers that were never meant to be wielded, without accountability or transparency, by one man.

    I said it about Dubya and I’ll say it about Obama: No one man should have the power to imprison without charges or to execute American citizens without a fair and open trial in a court of law.

    I mean, how Kafkaesque is it that we know there are innocent men in our country’s gulag, but our leaders refuse to let them go because these prisoners have been tortured?

  33. Bill_Perdue says:

    The question of the truth or non-truth of Republican charges is largely irrelevant.

    Both sides consistently lie through their teeth but neither will prosecute the other for war crimes, union busting, the crime of artificially maintaining high unemployment and other crimes against humanity, the murder of US citizens and gutting our Bill or Rights.
    As Pelosi says, that’s off the table.

    We don’t have a horse in the race between Democrats and Republicans.

  34. Bill_Perdue says:

    Except there’s Biden at the end of that trail – we lose no matter which way it goes.

  35. Naja pallida says:

    Don’t forget the new push in Congress to expand the Iraq War Resolution, to essentially give the President the unilateral power to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time, for any reason he deems necessary. When conservatives cry about tyranny, why don’t they ever mention these things? These are the real dictatorial powers, not making you pass a background check to own a gun.

  36. BeccaM says:

    What I take away from events like this and from recent years is the response seems to be predicated on whether the party — GOP or Dems — wants the capabilities or power for themselves when they’re in office. For example, for the most part the GOP leadership has been silent on drone-launched secretly-ordered assassinations. And we’ve seen how the current administration feels about warrant-less searches and wiretaps — they’re all for it, hence no investigations into the abuses of the previous administration, and indeed this expansion of whistleblower and leak prosecutions.

  37. karmanot says:

    Rachel Maddow went all ballistic, blathering about AP, yesterday and never once mentioned Bradley Manning.

  38. karmanot says:

    My thoughts exactly. I’m on the high side to seventy and will never survive a $700.00 cut per year to my Social Security benefits. I pray Obama unfolds like a cheap circus act for the CPI and all the other betrayals he has foisted upon us. I would celebrate in the streets to see him impeached and schadenfreude my self up one side of the street and down the other with my walker singing Alleluia.

  39. Mark_in_MN says:

    There are two aspects of this story that are disturbing. The primary problem with the AP thing is the way whistle blowers and leaders have been aggressively gone after. They shouldn’t have been looking at the AP phone records because they shouldn’t have been so concerned about or eager to track down leaks.

    The second disturbing aspect is the notion that somehow reporters and news agencies should be immune or receive extra protections because they are reporters or news organizations. The freedom of the press isn’t something given only to “the press.” It’s a freedom that we all have. Getting the phone records of the AP shouldn’t be any more or less problematic than getting the phone records of a citizen or other organization. Just the same, harassment because a media outlet, or a private citizen, disseminated/published information that government would rather not have at large, should be something we guard against.

  40. Naja pallida says:

    The problem is, Republicans would rather make stuff up to pin on the administration. They’d rather cry about manufactured things than hammer him on actual corruption and actual infringement on people’s rights… mainly because they want those corrupted powers for themselves. And since Obama has validated and entrenched so much corruption that the Bush administration started, the next administration will inevitably be just as corrupt. He screwed himself by not upholding the law, and by not appointing an Attorney General who was actually serious about the job.

  41. karmanot says:

    If somehow the overreach of the unity presidency would unfold, that might damage Obama enough to ruin the rest of his deceitful presidency.

  42. karmanot says:

    I would provide the popcorn, sit back and watch Obozo get nailed by impeachment. I could die happy then.

  43. karmanot says:

    Crazy or not I hope the Repubs attempt to impeach the SOB.

  44. Bill_Perdue says:

    Obama is now a political target and he’s about to get politically hammered.

    No one deserves it more. He’s driven down wages, busted unions more than Carter or Reagan could have imagined, maintained high unemployment, given trillions to the rich and their banks, done more to gut the Bill of Rights than Truman or McCarthy and he’s about to go after Social Security and gouge even more out of Medicare/Medicaid.

    Anyone who thinks that working people don’t have a very clear idea of who created the policies that imposed pauperization on us or that think that we’ll rally around Obama is in for an eye-opening surprise.

    The sharks are gathering and the feeding frenzy is about to begin. And this time it’s not about a stained blue dress, it’s about corruption, domestic spying, wars of aggression and an imperial presidency gone amok.

  45. basenjilover says:

    Funny how “news” organizations and bloggers, conservatives and liberal/progressives alike, get into snit over AP scandal. This has been going on for years. The bipartisan Bush Patriot Act greatly strengthens and enforces with no transparency government snoopings. We, the people, have only ourselves to blame for keeping corrupt self serving politicians in offices. Besides, I have zero compassion and sympathy for Obama and inept Holder.

  46. Just_AC says:

    Amazingly enough, the Washington Times (of all papers) had an article castigating the rest of the media for not properly reporting the AP scandal. Of course, there could (cough) be another agenda.


  47. JayRandal says:

    If Americans begin to believe GOP propaganda of Obama’s administration being inept, then GOPers impeaching BHO in House could be different in Senate than it was for Bill Clinton. Most Americans did
    back Clinton against impeachment. Obama shoving Chained-CPI for Social Security can tip Americans
    away from him to back impeachment conviction in Senate. Pressure would mount on Senate Democrats to abandon Obama to rally around VP Biden. Up to Obama now: Drop Chained-CPI
    or end up fully impeached so out door of White House.

  48. BeccaM says:

    I’ll follow Nicho’s model–

    1. Concur. Benghazi is an utterly phony scandal. The GOPers refuse to let it go because it serves as an excuse for never-ending House hearings and investigations, much like Whitewater, and also because it touches upon SecState Hillary Clinton’s tenure, and they think they can use this to derail any future political ambitions on her part.

    2. Maybe they went about it the wrong way, using key words like Tea Party and Patriot and whatnot, but I’m also with Nicho: These 503(c)(4) groups have no business being tax-exempt in the first place. Here’s what I want to know: We’ve learned that 75 out of some 300 groups flagged for further inquires were these new ‘Bagger advocacy groups, or 25%. So out of all of the newly created 503(c)(4) groups, what is the percentage of ‘Bagger group versus all others? It wouldn’t surprise me if in fact it was in the same ballpark, but it’d be better to know what it actually is. If it’s not, and this was political, (1) who ordered it? and (2) is this what we can expect going forward — Bush in office, the IRS goes after progressive groups, Obama in office the IRS goes after Tea Party groups? In other words, has the IRS been undergoing a metamorphosis into a bullying tool for politics?

    3. I, too, find the AP story to be disturbing. On the other hand, we’ve seen how during the last two administrations the prosecutions of whistleblowers has gone through the roof, especially when what is reported embarrasses the Powers That Be, and the rise of institutionalized surveillance and complete disregard for the rule of law. It can’t be the FBI and NSA and the rest of the alphabet law enforcement agencies don’t know what the regs and laws are — is that they know and don’t care anymore.

    Benghazi is completely partisan. But the thread I’m seeing woven through the IRS and AP incidents is an overreach of gov’t power and as I said, a disregard for the rule of law, along with this new assertion that if the gov’t wants to know something, they don’t bother to ask permission or follow the rules — they just go do it..

  49. JayRandal says:

    I believe Congressional Republicans are looking for some kind of justification event scandal to impeach President Obama in the House same as they did to Bill Clinton. GOPers wanted Benghazi
    attack as their primary justification to impeach Obama, but that is unraveling for them now. IRS scandal and AP fiasco becoming their focus presently. My opinion is that majority of Americans will defend BHO
    against impeachment unless he enrages entire nation pushing Chained-CPI for Social Security. BHO tends to act tone deaf about cuts to Social Security so if he wants Americans to back GOP impeachment of him, then pushing Chained-CPI might do it. Obama must back off SS cuts.

  50. Trish says:

    Seriously, I can’t believe that the rethuglicans have you all believe the so-called AP scandal. You all need to go read the ‘Patriot Act” signed by bush. This is not new because it was also done under the bush Administration. Besides, the rethuglicans failed to vote on a law to protect the press. Look, people should stop being neive. Retuglicans are silivating for a real scandal and they are frustrated that there is none. I will never believe any thing coming from the rethuglicans.

  51. dommyluc says:

    Yes, I already know but I was just saying that it was the phone call records that were obtained. As a matter of fact, when Bush and his band of merry flying monkeys were going all batshit insane after 9/11, I actually used to yell into the phone, “…if any of you motherfuckers from Homeland Security are listening in you can suck my dick!” My friends on the other end of the line always got a great chuckle out of this, and I still use it once in a while. And I use an even nastier variant whenever I get a call from a Republican fundraiser. They don’t call me much anymore, surprizingly

  52. nicho says:

    in fact, they got phone call records, not recorded conversations.

    I hate to be the one to tell you, but they already have the phone conversations. All of our phone conversations are recorded and stored. Yours and mine too. They let that cat out of the bag when they were investigating the Marathon bombing and said that they had gone over phone conversations between Tamerlan and his wife in the weeks before the bombing.

  53. nicho says:

    1. Benghazi is a phony scandal. Conservatives are just throwing their poo against a wall, hoping that something sticks.

    2. The IRS kerfuffle is another phony scandals. a. Why are political pressure groups applying for tax exemptions as charities. b. These Teabagger groups should be getting more scrutiny, not less.

    3. The AP thing is a very dangerous precedent. The mouth-breathers want Holder to resign. I agree that he should, but mostly because he hasn’t put banksters and other traitors in the prisoner dock.

    Anyway, all of this is a runup to an attempt to impeach Obama, which the Teabaggers (which have now pretty much subsumed the GOP) hope will give them a leg up to put more traitorous conservatives in Congress next year. The attempt will almost assuredly fail in the Senate, but the Teabaggers hope it will suck the oxygen out the air inside the Beltway.

  54. The president who launched a war without Congressional approval, holds dozens of people without trial or even charges of wrongdoing, and believes he can have any of his country’s citizens executed without due process ignored a few regulations? No one could have foreseen this.

  55. dommyluc says:

    I do not believe the government should be allowed to spy on journalists, although many seem to think they were listening in on phone conversations when, in fact, they got phone call records, not recorded conversations. Still bad, though, if no proof of necessity exists – and I mean a real reason that can be released to the public and not just some secret Senate or House national security commitee. But what REALLY pisses me off most about this whole affair is the fact that not one of the major news outlets, be it AP, CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS – not any of them – gave a flying f**k when MY and everyone else’s right to privacy and first amendment rights were infringed upon when constitutionally suspect laws were passed in Congress after 9/11. No, the majors news organizations cheerleaded the governments right to do this because FREEDOM and TERROR, and they also cheerleaded us into two devestating and useless wars. So please excuse me if I don’t shed any salted tears about poor Associated Press, especially after the right-wing antics of their former head, Ron Fournier. They can kiss my ass!!!

  56. CarlosTheJackal says:


    To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

    Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Barack Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”;

    Whereas, one of these offenses – that of illegally conducting war against Libya – has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be “clearly an impeachable offense” and “gross usurpation of the war power”;

    Whereas, Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner – is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as “an impeachable offense”;

    Whereas, Obama’s Justice Department has presided over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – a scandal that constitutional experts agree constitutes, at a minimum, clear grounds for impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder;

    Whereas, Obama has – in clear-cut violation of his oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” imposed by Article II of the Constitution – refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed into law in 1996 under President Bill Clinton;

    Whereas, Obama usurped the authority of Congress by issuing an executive order in June 2012 declaring that illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and who are younger than 30 would not be deported – essentially duplicating the DREAM Act which failed to pass in Congress;

    Whereas, Obama made several recess appointments in January 2012 while the Senate was still officially in session, actions the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled violated the Constitution because they weren’t made when the Senate was in recess;

    Whereas, the Obama administration’s multi-faceted scandal in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, is not only proof of what legal experts call tremendous “deceit” on the part of Obama and his top team, but a serious constitutional violation as well;…

    Whereas, numerous other constitutional outrages characterize Obama’s presidency – from his administration’s abuses of citizens’ civil rights under cover of the PATRIOT Act; to the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute the worst case of voter intimidation in modern times, perpetrated by club-wielding New Black Panthers; to Obama’s appointment of more than 30 unelected “czars” to positions in federal agencies when the Constitution requires such appointments be vetted by Congress; and other instances of clear contempt for Congress, the Constitution and the American people:


    Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama, with particular focus on the illegal war against Libya and the illegal “kill list” of U.S. citizens – offenses universally condemned by top constitutional experts as both unprecedented and unquestionably impeachable. For members of Congress, who have also sworn solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flout the Supreme Law of the Land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free people.


    www goo.gl / NzhqV

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS