Breaking the law. DOJ judge-shopped for Rosen warrant.

In the National Review, there is a story that the DOJ judge-shopped in order to find a judge who would sign a warrant for Rosen. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349558/report-doj-judge-shopped-secret-rosen-warrant-ian-tuttle

 

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 103(a) reads: 

The Chief Justice of the United States shall publicly designate seven district court judges from seven of the United States judicial circuits who shall constitute a court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States under the procedures set forth in this Act, except that no judge designated under this subsection shall hear the same application for electronic surveillance under this Act which has been denied previously by another judge designated under this subsection
 
Notice the bold above.  Seems to me if the judge-shopping charge is true, the DOJ broke the law. 
To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments

  1. livelonger

    That’s where novices in law get in too deep. Lawyers can see a few ways to argue the situation.
    Two judges said that Rosen had to be notified of the warrant, they didn’t say the warrant was denied – or did they in any way? That’s where lawyers get to play and novices get to wait in the sand box.

    June 14, 2013
    1. 29A

      Could be novice, but as the New Yorker’s article shows, Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument, which I would interpret as an instance of a denying of the warrant.
      http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html
      .
      It is probably somewhat open to interpretation, kind of like whether Holder’s May 15 statement to Congress was a lie because he said ‘potential prosecution’ while Rosen was clearly identified in government documents as an ‘aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator’, documents which Holder signed.
      “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

      June 14, 2013
      1. livelonger

        Newmedia and readers have no obligation to remember that people are innocent until found guilty, so even if Rosen is identified as an ‘aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator’, in documents which Holder signed, that doesn’t apply as a conviction. Warrants are offered to find evidence or to hold for prosecution, they aren’t a conviction. Holder isn’t a judge to sign conviction.
        .
        “Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

        Rosen was not indicted in the case.

        June 14, 2013
        1. 29A

          It doesn’t matter that Rosen was neither indicted or convicted, because Holder’s words were ‘potential prosecution’, and Rosen, in being identified as an ‘aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator’, could ‘potentially’ be prosecuted in the future.

          June 14, 2013
        2. livelonger

          Which means what?

          June 14, 2013
          1. 29A

            If you talk to Republicans, they would say Holder lied. Me, I’m waiting to see if the Republican in the House Judiciary Committee can make it stick before I form my opinion.

            June 14, 2013
          2. livelonger

            Republicans say many things that in the long run don’t hold. We’re still waiting for analysis of every communication and emails in Republican committees of Libya, IRS, and DOJ; while expecting more examination of infinite detail until some link of some kind actually reaches where Republicans point.

            June 14, 2013
            1. 29A

              Ha, ha.
              Five committees for the Libya investigation, four for the IRS, at least one for Holder’s statement – it’s a real dog and pony show. I imagine nothing will come of any of it, although I still would like to know why the Benghazi talking-points had the fact of known terrorist activity removed from them. I guess National Security could be a acceptable answer, except I’m getting tired of that answer.

              June 14, 2013
            2. livelonger

              Some of the members of the group considered terrorists, Ansar al-Shariah, were part of the attack, and that was stated in the original; but when the CIA annex personnel who were there to coordinate defense of the consulate and themselves by local militias talked to the leadership of that group, the leaders denied that they ordered the members to attack, so the statement was altered.
              .
              Much of the Republican offense was based on the CIA wanting to have their mission in Banghazi kept secret, so such information wouldn’t be available to the public. US military of any ‘boots on the ground’ kind weren’t authorized by Congress.

              “The militia believed to be behind the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi earlier this month has disbanded amid a wave of popular anger and government pressure against such groups in Libya that erupted last week.

              Some 30,000 people protested the militias on Friday, driving out gunmen from the Benghazi compound of Ansar al-Shariah, the group that allegedly staged the Sept. 11 attack on the US mission that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. "
              http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/libya-cracks-down-on-militias-german-press-review-a-857590.html
              .
              “El-Azizi is the first suspect Egypt has linked to the Benghazi attack, although Tunisia has already said it arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian linked to it. Interior Ministry spokesman Tarrouch Khaled said Wednesday that the suspect, Ali Harzi, was in custody in Tunis, facing terrorism charges.

              Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. has been looking into the arrests of two Tunisian men detained in Turkey, reportedly in connection with the attacks."
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/karim-el-azizi-libya-consulate-attack_n_2017611.html?utm_hp_ref=world
              .

              June 14, 2013
            3. 29A

              ’…the leaders denied that they ordered the members to attack, so the statement was altered. "

              As a reason for deleting the original reference, that doesn’t really float since it is well known that al-qaeda groups form in cells which have a large degree of autonomy. It was still an attack/terrorism whether or not Ansar al-Shariah’s leadership was involved.
              .
              Hell, the State Department could just have easily, and perhaps more believably, said that it wasn’t terrorism because Ansar al-Shariah isn’t on their list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations!
              .
              No, Obama didn’t call it terrorism the day after, sure he mentioned terrorism, but in fact, he only called it a ‘terrible act’ – if he had really called it terrorism, then why did Ambassador Rice go out on 5 TV shows and blame the video, and why did the State Department produce a $70k video in Pakistan which also blamed the video? They didn’t get the memo?
              .
              Yeah, there’s always the CIA/National Security line. Bullshit. As far as I know, they don’t really qualify as either military or ‘boots on the ground’. I’m not really sure of the CIA’s charter – or at least they engage in things which isn’t in their public charter – and they’ve got a bunch of skeletons in the closet. That angle just makes me wonder what else they were doing in Libya.

              June 14, 2013
            4. livelonger

              Your approach is due to your liberty to ignore diplomatic relations from a few thousand miles away. The CIA was there to keep contact with local militias and to use them to provide security, among the other things we won’t know.
              .
              You from your distance have the ability to say ‘screw the militia’ that had some renegades in their loosely organized volunteer organization, but the State department and CIA had to be more circumspect about insulting allies, so they chose not to accuse them when their leaders said they didn’t order their men to attack. They weren’t in a position to make enemies around them further.
              .
              You still spew the line that the word terrorists wasn’t in the releases, and Obama didn’t say terrorist in the Rose Garden; but history shows otherwise.

              June 14, 2013
            5. 29A

              Seriously?
              .
              First you say the State department and CIA had to be circumspect about insulting allies, then you claim that the day after Obama called them terrorist attacks.
              .
              That’s right, folks! Forget the peons at the State Department or the CIA insulting our allies, we’ll have the President insult them instead – like the 5200 miles in between D.C. and Benghazi would prevent them from hearing that!
              .
              No the President soft-pedaled at best, and then allowed the mis-information continue with Rice’s statements and the Pakistani TV spot.

              June 15, 2013
            6. livelonger

              Getting desperate for a win eh?
              There’s a big difference in naming the Ansar al-Shariah and blaming terrorists of other groups. I don’t know why you insist on diverting to this argument when it’s already been settled in the press many times.

              June 15, 2013
            7. 29A

              Winning…you have yet to explain Rice’s talking points, apparently authorized by the administration.
              .
              It’s settled? To bad you can’t share your enlightenment with the Republican members of Congress. The difference I see is that by waiting, the administration let evidence grow stale and terrorists escape.

              June 15, 2013
            8. livelonger

              You seem to have difficulty reading from the above posts …
              .
              ““The militia believed to be behind the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi earlier this month has disbanded amid a wave of popular anger and government pressure against such groups in Libya that erupted last week.

              Some 30,000 people protested the militias on Friday, driving out gunmen from the Benghazi compound of Ansar al-Shariah, the group that allegedly staged the Sept. 11 attack on the US mission that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. "
              http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/libya-cracks-down-on-militias-german-press-review-a-857590.html
              .
              “El-Azizi is the first suspect Egypt has linked to the Benghazi attack, although Tunisia has already said it arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian linked to it. Interior Ministry spokesman Tarrouch Khaled said Wednesday that the suspect, Ali Harzi, was in custody in Tunis, facing terrorism charges.

              Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. has been looking into the arrests of two Tunisian men detained in Turkey, reportedly in connection with the attacks."
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/karim-el-azizi-libya-consulate-attack_n_2017611.html?utm_hp_ref=world

              June 15, 2013
            9. 29A

              I read all that…great so now Ansar al-Shariah has been driven out of Benghazi and they have four possible suspects – there were more than four involved in the attack, and it still doesn’t explain Rice’s edited talking points on the Sunday shows of Sept. 16. But I chalk up your avoidance of the Rice issue to you being ‘in the tank’ for Obama.
              .
              Facts are that two hours into the attacks, the State Department Operations Center sent out an alert indicating that Ansar al-Shariah had claimed credit for the attacks, and the following day the CIA station chief again confirmed to the administration the participation of Islamic militants and made it clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. Ansar al-Shariah’s leadership may have later denied involvement, but rogue agents are still terrorists, and Benghazi was still terrorism. The CIA also knew the stated mission of Ansar al-Shariah was to spread sharia law in Libya and emphasized “the need for jihad.”
              .
              Of course your position is that Obama, on Sept. 12th, had already stated that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, so “what difference, at this point, does it make” if Rice would have continued telling the truth? Diplomacy? Cover for the CIA? Neither worked for the admin. because it’s now all out in the open.
              .
              Instead the administration obfuscated, and perhaps didn’t prioritize Benghazi, resulting in the area not being secured by the State Department, as requested by the FBI in a timely manner, and the FBI not being able to access the site until over 15 days later. Contrary to what Obama said, there likely is a ‘there, there’.

              June 15, 2013
            10. livelonger

              So you don’t really uderstand how your government works. The FBI is tasked with activities within the USA. The State Department and CIA are tasked with duties outside the USA. The CIA was already in Benghazi and was meetinig with militias including Ansar al-Shariah. The militias that cooperated with the FBI chased down Ansar al-Shariah and disbanded them. There’s only so much the CIA can do within a sovereign foreign state.
              .
              The truth was that the State Department could only report the latest intelligence as it was confirmed and there was no confirmation that Ansar al-Shariah ran the attack, though some participated.
              .
              You in your absolute infinite god-like wisdom that sees all before, during and after could have done better so you can now blame an entire government for not being as wise as you.

              June 15, 2013
            11. 29A

              I kind of know how the government works.
              .
              First you say, ‘The FBI is tasked with activities within the USA. The State Department and CIA are tasked with duties outside the USA. ’, then you admit that the FBI was chasing down Ansar al-Shariah, basically acknowledging what I said, that the FBI was in charge of the investigation in Libya.
              .
              ’…there was no confirmation that Ansar al-Shariah ran the attack…’
              .
              But what was confirmed was that militants were involved and it was terrorism. The administration’s failure to consistently acknowledge that is the point of my frustration. The appearance is that they were trying to sweep something under the rug.
              .
              ‘You in your absolute infinite god-like wisdom that sees all before, during and after could have done better so you can now blame an entire government for not being as wise as you. ’
              .
              Yep. All I do is sit in an easy chair and spew my diatribes over the Internet. I just think the administration could have done much better by sticking to the truth.
              .
              Oh, and changing the talking points to prevent the CIA’s involvement from becoming known doesn’t hold becasue the CIA’s presence in Libya was known as early as March of 2011.

              June 15, 2013
            12. livelonger

              “then you admit that the FBI was chasing down Ansar al-Shariah, basically acknowledging what I said, that the FBI was in charge of the investigation in Libya.
              .
              That’s your wishful interpretation. After the incident, the FBI used international contacts to find terrorists that were more than Ansar Al Shariah using contacts within the Libyan government through militias in contact with CIA.
              There’s no ‘admission’ that the FBI suddenly abused its charter to take over for the defense, state, and CIA. That’s your distortion to ‘win’ something.
              .
              At the short time of the incident, there was no FBI there to investigate anything. It was the CIA that was in constant communication, and it was they who wrote the talking points, then changed advisories as the facts were confirmed.
              .
              At all times there was the indication that an attack by anyone was a ‘terrorist act’ by anyone. but there was no confirmation of a particular terrorist group to state in public for sure. Even if there really was a group incited by the video, and some probably were, whether they just decided to shoot rockets machine guns, and throw grenades on the spur of the moment, it was a terrorist attack.
              .
              Republicans are splitting words to spit words.

              June 15, 2013
            13. 29A

              Far be it from me to distort/misinterpret the FBI’s charter, which seems harder to find than the CIA’s charter. I’m just going by what I’ve read. None of these stories indicate the FBI used ‘international contacts’ to conduct the investigation.
              .
              ‘Last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that an FBI team had reached Libya earlier in the week. ’
              http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/world/africa/libya-investigation
              .
              ’Mueller also touched on the FBI’s delay in getting agents into Benghazi last year to conduct an investigation of the attack…’
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/robert-mueller-fbi_n_3434190.html
              .
              ’CBS News correspondent David Martin reports the FBI has opened an investigation into the deaths, and agents will be sent to sift through the wreckage for evidence. ’
              http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511645/u.s-launching-apparent-terrorist-hunt-in-libya/

              June 15, 2013
            14. livelonger

              So it might get to you that the FBI could come in after the attacks by getting permission from the Libyan government – whatever that is. They aren’t in charge of the entire State Department and CIA there. Homeland Security in the US has an umbrella over the agencies, so can coordinate from the US. The FBI had and has no powers in Libya to do anything but investigate after the fact. The State Department and CIA aren’t investigators reporting to DOJ.
              .
              Your 100% hiindsight seems like the FBI could have caught the attackers right after the attack before the press releases. The Republican-led committees knew that the FBI couldn’t have done a thing at the time of the attacks; but they think it’s better to be the ‘stupid party’ and make headlines.
              .
              .Look at the dates of the references above and don’t leave out the sentences:
              “(CNN) — More than two weeks after four Americans — including the U.S. ambassador to Libya — were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.”
              .
              “Mueller also touched on the FBI’s delay in getting agents into Benghazi last year to conduct an investigation of the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

              The two-week delay “adversely impacted the ability to gather evidence in a variety of ways and adversely impacted the investigation,” Mueller said.

              “In Benghazi, there is no law enforcement,” he explained. “There is nobody that you can deal with in terms of assuring your security.” In addition, putting agents into the country was dependent on getting visas from the Libyan government and “the government then and today is still unstable,” Mueller said. “It’s very difficult to get any decision made.”"
              .

              ..

              June 15, 2013
            15. 29A

              Well, I wasn’t leaving out sentences to purposely deflect from the reasons the FBI didn’t get into Benghazi very soon, because that wasn’t my point – I was just showing that the FBI was the agency doing the investigation, with what appears to be US personnel. Nor was I intimating that the FBI could have gotten there, ‘right after the attack before the press releases’. But in light of what you’ve said, perhaps I did leave out this quote showing the failure of those responsible for the crime scene.
              .
              ’FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened. ’
              http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/world/africa/libya-investigation

              June 15, 2013
            16. livelonger

              “the failure of those responsible for the crime scene”
              What can that possibly mean?
              The attackers didn’t fail in the crime scene.
              The people who died didn’t fail.
              .
              The bottom line is that Congress failed to fund the State Department sufficiently to have robust security for two years before, (but funded it much more right after to cover that they failed to do that), The CIA wasn’t equipped nor prepared for the strength of the attack to defend the consulate, the ambassador went into an unsecure area against suggestions not to, there wasn’t time for Cairo defenders to leave their embassy while there were demonstrations, the CIA at Benghazi told their mercenaries to stand down in defending the consulate (the general resigned right after), the military didn’t have planes prepared to send in special defense forces in time. Very few consulates are built like fortresses with large counter forces for protection, other than in Iraq.
              .
              However, Republicans will go through committee charades asking for every document in the world and investigations to find out they already knew that; but to make political hay against the minority party in the House to save Republicans from dying due to no attraction for the majority of Americans.

              June 15, 2013
            17. 29A

              “the failure of those responsible for the crime scene”
              What can that possibly mean?
              .
              That was me – you’ll probably say wrongly – laying it on the State Department for failing to impress upon the Libyans the imperative need to secure the scene. Yeah, Libya isn’t some US pawn, but it’s not like the US didn’t help depose Gaddafi. What price for a little good-will? Not that I’m blind to the fact that all these countries we ‘help’, turn out not to like the US so much – Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan isn’t looking too good either.
              .
              The cuts to embassy funding requests by the State Department did recieve some media time. You jumped ahead a bit. I wasn’t arguing that there were available military assets to protect the ambassador, since I don’t think there were, or that he hadn’t gone there unadvised.

              June 16, 2013
            18. livelonger

              I can take it that the State department failed to impress upon the ambassador that there was too much danger. The State department could only ask the CIA to protect the CIA operation and consulate – they failed to do so, perhaps. like the ambassador trusting too much to the militias to do the task of protection they were asked to do. They withdrew as the other militia(?s – or – a gathering of militiamen from different groups?) threatened.
              .
              The militias are more inclined to hit and run i guerrilla fashion than to stand ground.

              June 16, 2013
            19. 29A

              ‘the State department failed to impress upon the ambassador that there was too much danger’
              .
              Actually I can find that the State Department was told by the local militia, the Martyrs Brigade, ‘that the group would no longer support U.S. movements in the city, including the Ambassador’s visit’. According to the report, the State Department’s Accountability Review Board report does not indicate whether the ’information had been delivered to the regional security officer in Tripoli the day before Stevens traveled to Benghazi. ’
              http://cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned-it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi

              June 16, 2013
    2. 29A

      The language of FISA says if an ‘application’ is denied, it should not be heard by another judge, and Judge Facciola denied the application because Rosen wasn’t to be notified.

      June 14, 2013
      1. livelonger

        OK, so, … Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
        We aren’t lawyers; does that mean the two judgements and judges before didn’t exist? And as FISA says if an ‘application’ is denied, it should not be heard by another judge; did Lamberth break the law?

        June 14, 2013
        1. 29A

          At least Lamberth…DOJ, Manchen.

          June 14, 2013
        2. livelonger

          And then … did Lamberth hear the application, or judge the judgements of the two judges, Law is a murky bog.

          June 14, 2013
          1. 29A

            ‘Law is a murky bog. ’
            Isn’t it though. I suppose it’s entirely possible that Lamberth had no knowledge of the application being rejected twice previously…

            June 14, 2013