Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

[The Rabbi]

So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

This is where I call you a good little minion and walk away from this discussion with you.

So does you calling me a little minion mean it is wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

No. Why is that relevant here? Answer: it isn't.

 

[Oldstyle]

Profiling is profiling. Its wrong, its discriminatory, its anti-American, whether its the police, the FBI or the CIA- that's what the IRS scandal is all about.

The James Rosen/AP journalist scandal is about overreach when protecting government secrets. The government went to far.

Benghazi is a trumped up conspiracy theory. There isn't anything that has come out in that Republican investigation which points at a cover up or the POTUS or State Dept. allowing Americans to die. If some compelling evidence comes to light that suggests that, then I will be with you in condemning Obama.

Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act pissed me off, more than any of his other **** ups. I believe a conservative President would've done no different since the leadership of the GOP seem to have no qualms with the Patriot Act and were even behind its drafting. So, I took a chance on Obama and got bit on the ass for it, but he is still pushing a progressive agenda- for the most part- and I would still vote for him before I would vote Republican.

Benghazi is more about this administration lying to the American people. It's about whether this administration was more concerned with protecting the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism defeated in order to help sway an election than they were telling us the truth. It's about we know that Susan Rice deliberately lied to the American public and that our SoS was in on it... our SoS who is being touted as a contender for POTUS who is a demonstrable liar.. just like her husband before her.

Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.

With all due respect, Mountain? The talking points being reworked dozens of times until they came to the "approval" of folks in the State Department isn't an "intelligence failure" by the CIA nor was it an effort to protect "state secrets" unless the State secrets you're speaking of are that the Obama White House didn't respond well to a crisis! What you're looking at in Benghazi is a good old fashioned cover-up...something that was done for political reasons in the heat of a campaign and Susan Rice was the dupe that they got to go out on those 5 Sunday morning talk shows in Hilary's place and tell their lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bob Dole supported social security, welfare, food stamps, etc. but all I've heard from Republicans since Newt took the speakership is privatize and gut. These programs are called socialism by Republicans. This isn't a narrative fed to me or MSNBC brainwashing me: that's what Republicans themselves propose.

If that's what you truly believe then I don't understand why you're a Republican.

I'm a Republican because I can do simple math, Mountain! I'm not caught up in hyperbole about pushing Grandma off a cliff and all of the other nonsense that's been trotted out there by liberals every time someone makes an effort to reform entitlements. I understand that we can't keep going on as we are now. It's not sustainable. Now do you honestly want to have a discussion about how to fix the problems we have with entitlements or do you want to turn this into a really stupid discussion about who hates old people?

I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.

I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.

Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Profiling is profiling. Its wrong, its discriminatory, its anti-American, whether its the police, the FBI or the CIA- that's what the IRS scandal is all about.

The James Rosen/AP journalist scandal is about overreach when protecting government secrets. The government went to far.

Benghazi is a trumped up conspiracy theory. There isn't anything that has come out in that Republican investigation which points at a cover up or the POTUS or State Dept. allowing Americans to die. If some compelling evidence comes to light that suggests that, then I will be with you in condemning Obama.

Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act pissed me off, more than any of his other **** ups. I believe a conservative President would've done no different since the leadership of the GOP seem to have no qualms with the Patriot Act and were even behind its drafting. So, I took a chance on Obama and got bit on the ass for it, but he is still pushing a progressive agenda- for the most part- and I would still vote for him before I would vote Republican.

Benghazi is more about this administration lying to the American people. It's about whether this administration was more concerned with protecting the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism defeated in order to help sway an election than they were telling us the truth. It's about we know that Susan Rice deliberately lied to the American public and that our SoS was in on it... our SoS who is being touted as a contender for POTUS who is a demonstrable liar.. just like her husband before her.

Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.

The truth does not require talking points...

 

[Oldstyle]

So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

This is where I call you a good little minion and walk away from this discussion with you.

So does you calling me a little minion mean it is wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

There was no lower court decision that was appealed to a higher court, you dolt! When you go "judge shopping" for warrants as Holder did...all that means is you go to multiple judges until you find one that will give you what you want. There aren't trials. There aren't decisions that are appealed.

 

[asterism]

What would "happen" to them that you would "be on them" about?

So its wrong to appeal a lower court's decision on a warrant application?

Dude, he went to two other judges and was told to, "go pound sand", because it wasn't warranted. He kept going until one finally caved.....makes me wonder if anything was promised to this judge.
Holder is in a lot of hot water over all of this.......and you just tote the water for him.....you're just a tool....no more.....no less. Keep making excuses and trying to make a case for him, it isn't flying anywhere but between those ears of yours.

So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

No.

Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is getting more and more interesting all the time though. Holder has now invited the media--ALL the media--to meet with him for a - get this - OFF THE RECORD conversation. I was just watching the news a few minutes ago and so far the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffpo, AP, McClatchy, Fox News and others have issued formal notices that they will not attend. To explain why he would not attend, one spokesperson pulled a line from the Watergate era that the duty of the press is to cast light into the darkest corners of government. Those organizations reporting on this overreach of government would be hypocritical to accept an invitation for a secret meeting about it.

Who will meet with the AG? MSNBC? Maybe Politico? But to what purpose? If the meeting is "off the record", won't that then hamstring them on what they are able to report at all if they uncover the information elsewhere?

 

[Google]

It is getting more and more interesting all the time though. Holder has now invited the media--ALL the media--to meet with him for a - get this - OFF THE RECORD conversation. I was just watching the news a few minutes ago and so far the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffpo, AP, McClatchy, Fox News and others have issued formal notices that they will not attend. To explain why he would not attend, one spokesperson pulled a line from the Watergate era that the duty of the press is to cast light into the darkest corners of government. Those organizations reporting on this overreach of government would be hypocritical to accept an invitation for a secret meeting about it.

Who will meet with the AG? MSNBC? Maybe Politico? But to what purpose? If the meeting is "off the record", won't that then hamstring them on what they are able to report at all if they uncover the information elsewhere?

This is standard operating procedure for the most transparent and open administration ever. White House Holds Secret Benghazi Briefing, Incensing Some Reporters

 

[Oldstyle]

It is getting more and more interesting all the time though. Holder has now invited the media--ALL the media--to meet with him for a - get this - OFF THE RECORD conversation. I was just watching the news a few minutes ago and so far the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffpo, AP, McClatchy, Fox News and others have issued formal notices that they will not attend. To explain why he would not attend, one spokesperson pulled a line from the Watergate era that the duty of the press is to cast light into the darkest corners of government. Those organizations reporting on this overreach of government would be hypocritical to accept an invitation for a secret meeting about it.

Who will meet with the AG? MSNBC? Maybe Politico? But to what purpose? If the meeting is "off the record", won't that then hamstring them on what they are able to report at all if they uncover the information elsewhere?

My guess is that Holder's trying hard to sell a narrative that he did what he did for "national security concerns", that because of this he can't disclose what really happened and he needs the press to stop asking questions about it. That's a load of happy horse shit but let's face it...it's all he's got left. The truth is...they didn't like leaks that made the White House look bad and they ESPECIALLY didn't like leaks to FOX News so they went to a bunch of judges with a story about James Rosen being a "co-conspirator" in a crime so that neither he nor Fox would know that the Obama folks were reading their private e-mails.

 

[Google]

Holder's off-the-record meeting with the press is motivated by his impending demise. This is either an attempt to squelch the criticism of the Justice Department, or simply to strong arm the press into obedience.

This is the same Justice Department that literally screamed and cursed at a reporter for investigating Fast and Furious when most media outlets were content with reporting the facts as according to Justice. CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed, Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious | The Weekly Standard

 

[Foxfyre]

Holder's off-the-record meeting with the press is motivated by his impending demise. This is either an attempt to squelch the criticism of the Justice Department, or simply to strong arm the press into obedience.

This is the same Justice Department that literally screamed and cursed at a reporter for investigating Fast and Furious when most media outlets were content with reporting the facts as according to Justice. CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed, Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious | The Weekly Standard

This administration, in the early going, enjoyed one of the most administration-friendly presses in my memory, and I have been watching this stuff for a long, long time now. But even the most liberal reporters, the most liberal editors do have some pride in their product. When the most star struck and ideologically blinded of them could no longer ignore the total fabrication and dishonest talking points they were regularly getting from the White House, they began actually reporting some of what was going on. And that is when it started hitting the fan.

For instance there was this in the Washington Post:

. . . .In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.” . . . .

. . . .This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily. . . .
BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi - Right Turn - The Washington Post

The Administration was pretty successful in deflecting media attention away from "Fast and Furious" before a good deal of damage was done to Obama's public image. And I'm quite sure the Administration was doing its damndest to get Benghazi off the front pages for the same reason, and you do that with a new scandal.

They didn't calculate on the anger of the press at being attacked itself, however, and/or public opinion being strongest about a full scale frontal assault on the freedom of the press. A recent Rasmussen poll showed the people to be very angry over the media scandal but less bothered by Benghazi, Fast & Furious, et al. But maybe with a less star struck adoring press, there will be more serious investigation now of events like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and other unacceptable events when they come up, there will be more front page coverage, and the public won't be led to believe that such things are no big deal?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Was it illegal?

Last I checked one needed a Judge to sign those things.

Even with the Patriot Act?

If what he did was illegal, full steam ahead with investigations. BUT, if it is currently legal, can anyone explain why we are investigating LEGAL actions?

Uh, I'm pretty sure it was not intended for that, do you have to back every single thing this administration does? really?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Benghazi is more about this administration lying to the American people. It's about whether this administration was more concerned with protecting the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism defeated in order to help sway an election than they were telling us the truth. It's about we know that Susan Rice deliberately lied to the American public and that our SoS was in on it... our SoS who is being touted as a contender for POTUS who is a demonstrable liar.. just like her husband before her.

Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.

With all due respect, Mountain? The talking points being reworked dozens of times until they came to the "approval" of folks in the State Department isn't an "intelligence failure" by the CIA nor was it an effort to protect "state secrets" unless the State secrets you're speaking of are that the Obama White House didn't respond well to a crisis! What you're looking at in Benghazi is a good old fashioned cover-up...something that was done for political reasons in the heat of a campaign and Susan Rice was the dupe that they got to go out on those 5 Sunday morning talk shows in Hilary's place and tell their lies.

The CIA wrote those talking points and none of the 12 rewrites changed the CIA's position that it was a spontaneous uprising. Al Qaida was never part of the CIA's initial report to us. If Rice was the fall guy, why did they try to get her appointed as SoS? There was never any narrative put out by the administration that Al Qaida was defeated or that the war on terror had been won. There had been defeats that Al Qaida suffered, but Obama never said they were defeated.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm a Republican because I can do simple math, Mountain! I'm not caught up in hyperbole about pushing Grandma off a cliff and all of the other nonsense that's been trotted out there by liberals every time someone makes an effort to reform entitlements. I understand that we can't keep going on as we are now. It's not sustainable. Now do you honestly want to have a discussion about how to fix the problems we have with entitlements or do you want to turn this into a really stupid discussion about who hates old people?

I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.

I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.

Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?

This is what I know: Republicans have tried to privatize SS. They talk about privatizing it. That takes away its guarantee. Therefore it is no longer social security but then becomes social not security. Am I wrong?

Republicans have tried to institute a voucher system for medicare/medicaid which wouldn't help old or sick people to purchase health insurance. It nullifies the purpose of that program. It was part of the Romney/Ryan platform. Am I wrong?

Republicans seem to not like welfare, apparently. There are abuses that happen with this program (as with all programs of this nature there is fraud), but its meant to help people who fall on hard times and it does. I want to keep it in place in case I or any of my loved ones ever need it. Republicans seem to want to dismantle this program because of "welfare queens". I want to keep it and reform it smartly so that there is less abuse but it still helps people get back on their feet. Same with food stamps. My mother was on food stamps when I was very young, and I'm grateful that the program was there to help her raise me and my brother. Am I wrong about this?

Is this what Republicans want to do to these programs or am I wrong?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dude, he went to two other judges and was told to, "go pound sand", because it wasn't warranted. He kept going until one finally caved.....makes me wonder if anything was promised to this judge.
Holder is in a lot of hot water over all of this.......and you just tote the water for him.....you're just a tool....no more.....no less. Keep making excuses and trying to make a case for him, it isn't flying anywhere but between those ears of yours.

So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

No.

Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?

Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!


Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is where I call you a good little minion and walk away from this discussion with you.

So does you calling me a little minion mean it is wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

There was no lower court decision that was appealed to a higher court, you dolt! When you go "judge shopping" for warrants as Holder did...all that means is you go to multiple judges until you find one that will give you what you want. There aren't trials. There aren't decisions that are appealed.

I'm fairly certain that a magistrate ranks below that of Chief Judge. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[asterism]

I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.

I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.

Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?

This is what I know: Republicans have tried to privatize SS. They talk about privatizing it. That takes away its guarantee. Therefore it is no longer social security but then becomes social not security. Am I wrong?

Republicans have tried to institute a voucher system for medicare/medicaid which wouldn't help old or sick people to purchase health insurance. It nullifies the purpose of that program. It was part of the Romney/Ryan platform. Am I wrong?

Republicans seem to not like welfare, apparently. There are abuses that happen with this program (as with all programs of this nature there is fraud), but its meant to help people who fall on hard times and it does. I want to keep it in place in case I or any of my loved ones ever need it. Republicans seem to want to dismantle this program because of "welfare queens". I want to keep it and reform it smartly so that there is less abuse but it still helps people get back on their feet. Same with food stamps. My mother was on food stamps when I was very young, and I'm grateful that the program was there to help her raise me and my brother. Am I wrong about this?

Is this what Republicans want to do to these programs or am I wrong?

Partial privatization of some Social Security contributions was proposed. Also, the unsustainable government management of Social Security is making it quite insecure.

Republicans generally want to scale back welfare programs, not dismantle then. The problem today is that in too many cases the social safety net has become a hammock and measures to combat fraud are inadequate.

The voucher program for healthcare is in response to the current view that our system is unsustainable and unwieldy. One does not have to denigrate people who disagree, but that's exactly what happens on both sides and it sucks.

 

[asterism]

So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?

No.

Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?

Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!


Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.

I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.

Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?

This is what I know: Republicans have tried to privatize SS. They talk about privatizing it. That takes away its guarantee. Therefore it is no longer social security but then becomes social not security. Am I wrong?

Republicans have tried to institute a voucher system for medicare/medicaid which wouldn't help old or sick people to purchase health insurance. It nullifies the purpose of that program. It was part of the Romney/Ryan platform. Am I wrong?

Republicans seem to not like welfare, apparently. There are abuses that happen with this program (as with all programs of this nature there is fraud), but its meant to help people who fall on hard times and it does. I want to keep it in place in case I or any of my loved ones ever need it. Republicans seem to want to dismantle this program because of "welfare queens". I want to keep it and reform it smartly so that there is less abuse but it still helps people get back on their feet. Same with food stamps. My mother was on food stamps when I was very young, and I'm grateful that the program was there to help her raise me and my brother. Am I wrong about this?

Is this what Republicans want to do to these programs or am I wrong?

There is no guarantee of Social Security now. It would be ended by a simple majority vote of Congress today if they chose to do that. And if the pressures on the economy prevent the U.S. government from paying its bills--and we are fast approaching that time--that could easily happen. You do not own your social security contributions and the government can do any damn thing with them they choose. You can't draw on them at will; if you die before you use those funds, you can't leave them to your loved ones. You can't manage or invest them and are at the mercy of the value of the dollar that congress controls, thus your social security benefits are worth less and less as inflation whittles away at their value.

Compassion is not using somebody else's money to give you something less than what you could have on your own.

Perhaps if the media had done its job better in recent decades, more people would see the wisdom of a regulated privatized system rather than the totally unsustainable system we currently have.

I admit to skepticism, but I have my fingers crossed that this current media scandal may be the jolt the media needs to wake up and start being the free press again. And maybe we would return to an era in which people will be more honestly informed about what their government does or does not do, and they will be less manipulated and misled.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No.

Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?

Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!


Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.