Ex-Senate Aide Charged in Leak Case Where Times Reporter’s Records Were Seized
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This reminds me of the book "1984". Freedom of the press should include being able to gather information from sources without the threat of the sources being arrested for providing that information.
WASHINGTON — A former Senate Intelligence Committee aide was arrested Thursday in an investigation of classified information leaks where prosecutors also secretly seized years’ worth of a New York Times reporter’s phone and email records.
The former aide, James A. Wolfe, 57, was charged with lying repeatedly to investigators about his contacts with three reporters. According to the authorities, Mr. Wolfe made false statements to the F.B.I. about providing two of them with private information related to the committee’s work. They did not say whether it was classified.
Mr. Wolfe was slated to appear before a federal judge on Friday in Washington. Reached Thursday evening before his arrest, Mr. Wolfe declined to comment.Mr. Wolfe’s case led to the first known instance of the Justice Department going after a reporter’s data under President Trump.
The seizure — disclosed in a letter to the reporter, Ali Watkins — suggested that prosecutors under the Trump administration will continue the aggressive tactics employed under President Barack Obama.
Mr. Trump has complained bitterly about leaks and demanded that law enforcement officials seek criminal charges against government officials involved in illegal and sometimes embarrassing disclosures of national security secrets.Investigators sought Ms. Watkins’s information as part of an inquiry into whether James A. Wolfe, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s former director of security, disclosed classified secrets to reporters. F.B.I. agents approached Ms. Watkins about a previous three-year romantic relationship she had with Mr. Wolfe, saying they were investigating unauthorized leaks.
News media advocates consider the idea of mining a journalist’s records for sources to be an intrusion on First Amendment freedoms, and prosecutors acknowledge it is one of the most delicate steps the Justice Department can take. “Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, and communications between journalists and their sources demand protection,” said Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman.A prosecutor notified Ms. Watkins on Feb. 13 that the Justice Department had years of customer records and subscriber information from telecommunications companies, including Google and Verizon, for two email accounts and a phone number of hers. Investigators did not obtain the content of the messages themselves. The Times learned on Thursday of the letter, which came from the national security division of the United States attorney’s office in Washington.
The records covered years’ worth of Ms. Watkins’s communications before she joined The Times in late 2017 to cover federal law enforcement. During a seven-month period last year for which prosecutors sought additional phone records, she worked for Buzzfeed News and then Politico reporting on national security.Shortly before she began working at The Times, Ms. Watkins was approached by the F.B.I. agents, who asserted that Mr. Wolfe had helped her with articles while they were dating. She did not answer their questions. Mr. Wolfe was not a source of classified information for Ms. Watkins during their relationship, she said.
Mr. Wolfe stopped performing committee work in December and retired in May.
Ms. Watkins said she told editors at Buzzfeed News and Politico about it and continued to cover national security, including the committee’s work. Ben Smith, the editor in chief of Buzzfeed News, said in a statement, “We’re deeply troubled by what looks like a case of law enforcement interfering with a reporter’s constitutional right to gather information about her own government.”A Politico spokesman, Brad Dayspring, said that the situation was “managed accordingly” after Ms. Watkins disclosed the matter, and that her primary beat was national security and law enforcement, not solely the committee, which other reporters primarily covered.
Ms. Watkins also told editors at The Times about the previous relationship when she was hired to cover federal law enforcement.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last year that the Justice Department was pursuing about three times as many leak investigations as were open at the end of the Obama administration. Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department prosecuted more leak cases than all previous administrations combined.
“The attorney general has stated that investigations and prosecutions of unauthorized disclosure of controlled information are a priority of the Department of Justice,” John Demers, a top Justice Department official, said in a statement announcing Mr. Wolfe’s arrest.Ms. Watkins’s personal lawyer, Mark J. MacDougall, said: “It’s always disconcerting when a journalist’s telephone records are obtained by the Justice Department — through a grand jury subpoena or other legal process. Whether it was really necessary here will depend on the nature of the investigation and the scope of any charges.”
The investigation came to light after the Senate Intelligence Committee made a cryptic announcement on Wednesday that it was cooperating with the Department of Justice “in a pending investigation.” Earlier, the Senate quietly and unanimously adopted a resolution to share committee information with the Justice Department “in connection with a pending investigation arising out of the unauthorized disclosure of information.”
Mr. Wolfe, a former Army intelligence analyst, worked for the committee in a nonpartisan capacity for nearly 30 years. He worked closely with both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.When law enforcement officials obtained journalists’ records during the Obama administration, members of Congress in both parties sounded alarms, and the moves touched off such a firestorm among advocates for press freedom that helped prompt the Justice Department to rewrite its relevant guidelines.
Under Justice Department regulations, investigators must clear additional hurdles before they can seek business records that could reveal a reporter’s confidential sources, such as phone and email records. In particular, the rules require the government to have “made all reasonable attempts to obtain the information from alternative, non-media sources” before investigators may target a reporter’s information.
In addition, the rules generally require the Justice Department to notify reporters first to allow them to negotiate over the scope of their demand for information and potentially challenge it in court. The rules permit the attorney general to make an exception to that practice if he “determines that, for compelling reasons, such negotiations would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation, risk grave harm to national security, or present an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.”Top Justice Department officials must sign off on any attempt to gain access to a journalist’s communications records.
It is not clear whether investigators exhausted all of their avenues of information before confiscating Ms. Watkins’s information. She was not notified before they gained access to her information from the telecommunications companies. Among the records seized were those associated with her university email address from her undergraduate years.
“We intend to get to the bottom of these leaks. I think it has reached epidemic proportions,” Mr. Sessions said in November during testimony on Capitol Hill. “It cannot be allowed to continue, and we will do our best effort to ensure it does not continue.”
“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy,” Ms. Murphy said. “This decision by the Justice Department will endanger reporters’ ability to promise confidentiality to their sources and, ultimately, undermine the ability of a free press to shine a much-needed light on government actions. That should be a grave concern to anyone who cares about an informed citizenry.”The Intelligence Committee is responsible for carrying out oversight of American intelligence agencies, including the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, and their secretive operations. It is one of the most tightly secured groups in Congress, with strict rules for lawmakers and the professional staff governing the circulation and release of sensitive, and often classified, information that passes before the committee.
As security director, Mr. Wolfe would have been responsible for ensuring that those rules were upheld. When the committee became a matter of intense interest as it undertook a bipartisan investigation of Russia’s election meddling, Mr. Wolfe played a more visible role ushering witnesses in and out of the committee’s secured office space.
The committee’s members and aides have prided themselves on keeping sensitive information closely held, particularly as it began its high-profile Russia investigation requiring scores of private witness interviews and reviews of highly sensitive intelligence and law enforcement documents related to the case.
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
Well, in the case of the Trump administration any leak could cause the "Liar in Chief" to end up in jail, that is enough for him and, his DOJ to stop any leaks about the Russia investigation from the Senate or, his White House.
With the decision from the DOJ it is evident that our free press is no longer free.
This reminds me of the book "1984". Freedom of the press should include being able to gather information from sources without the threat of the sources being arrested for providing that information.
Well, if that information includes government secrets and involves national security, the freedom of the press doesn't offer a shield from prosecution for treason. Why so indignant about this, when Obama's DOJ sent a covert spy into the Trump campaign staff and also bugged the phones and emails with fake FISA warrants.
Also from the article.
Mr. Wolfe’s case led to the first known instance of the Justice Department going after a reporter’s data under President Trump.
The seizure — disclosed in a letter to the reporter, Ali Watkins — suggested that prosecutors under the Trump administration will continue the aggressive tactics employed under President Barack Obama.
The seeded article claims the prosecutors under Trump are just continuing the aggressive tactics employed under Obama.
Yes, I saw that, I don't care if it's under Trump, under Obama or, under a bridge, it is wrong to go after a reporters source, it undermines our free press and, brings into question if we are a free democracy or, a dictatorship. Trump has the mentality to try to create a dictatorship, Obama didn't, there is the difference.
I certainly agree. It was wrong while Obama was doing it and it is wrong now.
Not in this day and age, with all this "Sources Said", and the MSM ends up apologizing for "False Reports" !
Don't you find it funny....and SAD …. that News outlets now NEED "Fact Checker" arms, when "News" themselves are supposed to be the "Fact Checkers" in the FIRST PLACE !
Just curious .. what about cases of what some consider treasonous whistle blowing .. Manning, Snowden etc (as an example) should they be able to remain as an anonymous source?
Interesting .. I think anyone that seeks power has the mentality to create a dictatorship, they obviously think they have answers to problems that no one else has been able to solve - why else run for president?
How about directly spying on reporters? Obama had no problem with it....
Not so much, I would rather have a reporter have to come out and, admit they were wrong than have one build on the lie, making it worse, that is why I don't like FOX, they build on the lie, they don't correct any mistake at all.
Not so much on the apologies (few, but far apart), but MUCH on the weird reporting !
Remember the Andrea Mitchell lie about Romney and "WAWA" ? It hasn't changed.
"I would rather have a reporter have to come out and, admit they were wrong"
Once the "LIE" gets out, it's stuck in peoples head. It's not like in court when a judge can make the jury to disregard a statement, and they have to by law.
What did Manning and, Snowden actually expose? Snowden exposed, I believe, the fact that the government was keeping private information on citizens stored somewhere out west, something I think the American people should have known about. Manning on the other had did put lives in danger with his actions, in the past it might have gotten him shot.
If they not only have narcissistic tendency's but, also they have some megalomaniac tendency's then they want to dictate, Obama was a little narcissistic but, he lack the megalomaniac tendency's, Trump on the other hand is straight up narcissist and, very heavy into megalomaniac mode at all times, he's dangerous to our democracy.
There was also Sharyl Attkisson who claimed in her book Stonewalled that she was being spied on.
I have to respectfully disagree regarding Obama and narcissism, I felt that he was a danger to 'our' Republic - the United States is not founded on mob rule and group thinks .. it is a nation of individuals and individual rights, I did not agree with 'fundamental change' as I think it was a dividing factor...
I will leave it at that … as always .. just my opinion..
I never said that Obama didn't have some narcissism in him, he did but, I believe that every president does have to have that little spark of narcissism, otherwise they wouldn't want to be president, who really wants that job anyway? It is one of the worst jobs in the world, there's always people who hate you no matter how good a job you do.
Fundamental change was a dream, nothing was going to change but, I liked his optimism in that respect, I knew what was going to happen when he got in office, I could see it coming from the Tea Party push and, to this day I think the divide came not from Obama but, from the Tea Party and, folks like McConnell and, Boehner.
That one sentence seems a lil less pointed when read within the context intended ..
Not sure how I feel about all of this .. after the Obama administration created the original uproar, procedures were changed - things died down, probably not forgotten .. but ignored until once again the ugly head of the beast is raised. This is not the creation of current administration, yet is the seeking of reporters records being viewed more negatively now that the current administration is the one doing it?
I feel leaks / whistle blowing need some guidelines (seems as though some leaks are just bogus BS passed along to fit an agenda) - but (as there are always, at least 2 sides to everything) to what extent and who is qualified to decide what can and cannot be sought by the government from the free press that is suppose to be part of the checks and balances?
I always seem to end up with more Constitutional questions than answers when things like this present themselves …………… However, I do have to say … I am so tired of reading things like "according to two sources familiar with how the administration thinks ...." etc
I can understand your frustration with this but, if it wasn't for the anonymous sources we wouldn't know about Watergate, Iran/Contra and, a whole lot of other things, do you really want every source brought into the light of day?
Was not aware that I indicated in anyway that I desire every source to be revealed .. am thinking that whistle blowing and leaking are not the same things ..
Watergate, Iran-a-muck? What about Manning and Snowden? Snowden revealed a major breach of American citizens privacy by the government and is now hated by many because he did not blow the whistle the "right way"
These 'leaks' can be nothing but straight up lies - should that be protected? News is no longer news, it is now opinion based writings full of anonymous sources … I question everything I read .. thus I now read every source I can find in hopes of possibly gleaning some truth...
Which is what you should have been doing from the start. I tried watching FOX when it first aired many years ago and, I watched Rush Limbaugh but, I soon learned that the only things they cared about was putting forth only one side of the story, the conservative side, all others be damned, even if the others were telling the real story. I'd rather be wrong 5% of the time than to be wrong all the time in what I think, so, like you, I do my research. I've watched Trump over the years and, I've learned one thing, if we don't keep a leash on him he will turn our country into a Banana Republic.
I am thinking [scary I know] that this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg …. .. can the current administration possibly do anything correctly?
I keep reading how the current president 'wants' a dictatorship and desires to be king .. yet he is not the one that implemented the current rules of engagement ..
However, he is the one who thinks the DOJ is his personal law firm.
I have always read multiple sources .. when I started reading comment sections, I realized how important it is..
Years ago my mom watched Limbaugh, she also watch MSNBC, loved Chris Matthews ………….. I once watch Rachel Maddow as well, until everything became nothing but partisanship .. there are very few 'news' sources that are not partisan.. the 'free press' is no longer neutral .. sides have been chosen and agendas are pushed.
Seriously .. and you do not think the former President did as well?
I just cannot be partisan .. stepping on the current president while giving the Obama administration a pass is nothing but partisanship.. in my opinion
Gosh, I didn't know that news story's from Reuters were opinion pieces.
I have to believe that we still have a free press and, that, for the most part it is neutral. Yes, sides have been chosen but, who's fault is that? I look at things on MSNBC with a grain of salt added, I also check other sources to see if the story I hear about on the news or, on MSNBC is carried there, if it is then I listen to see what they have to say about it, most of the time it is about the same.
Good question, seriously good question.
I always assumed it was the media and the politicians fault because they are the ones who seemingly profit from the division.
But I never really asked myself the question you just asked. Who really is to blame ?
Did they politicians and media divide us OR did we divide them ?
Thanks for asking. Good question.
No, I don't and, here's why. Obama never would have told Holder or, Lynch to over see an investigation were they were a subject or, a possible target and, then threatened to fire them because they chose to recuse themselves, Trump on the other hand has already said that he wouldn't have hire Jeff Sessions had he known he would recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. big fucking difference.
We are the ones that actually decide which sells better, "Dog bites man or, man bites dog", and, it is the media that reacts to that.
I believe free press still remains intact, just not in the main stream media organizations .. depending on the subject matter, I usually read NBC first, and then move on from there - the same exact storyline from source to source takes on a whole new meaning based on where emphasis is placed ..
I am thinking that you and I possibly have a different understanding of neutrality .. as I see a great deal of bias from both sides in the media - perhaps I have become overly cynical
Who is to blame for the media printing biased opinions as news? Good question.. I am going to say .. "We the People" (?) for accepting and supporting, thus pushing the narrative of 'tell 'me' what 'I' want to hear' .. (?)
You are most likely correct .. yet there was very lil transparency coming out of the former administration … compared to the over the top announcements of everything from the current administration... I am not really sure how the White House can determine what a leak really is .. the president pretty much tweets whatever pops into his head!
Then We better pull our heads out of the collective you know what or the division in this country could eventually destroy it for all of us.
Divided we fall isn't just a cute saying, if we look at other countries its a reality.
I said in another post that the president, (Trump) lies 95%, I should temper that and, say that out of that, 15% would be half truths and, the rest are out right lies so, how can anyone believe anything that comes out of this administration? As my mother would say, Sanders talks out of the side of her mouth, which means she's telling a lie or, obfuscating to avoid telling the truth.
This is why we need people who are willing to put their jobs on the line to get the truth out there for us normal Americans.
My father told me one time how he decided on a candidate when he was going to vote, he said, I don't vote for the person I think will do the better job or, who's idea's or, ideals are like mine, "I vote for the person I think will do the least damage while they are in office because, that is all you're going to get out of a politician", since he said that to me, I've seen what he means by that so, I look at the candidates and, vote for the person I think will do the least damage, that is why I voted for Hillary, there was a Republican Congress and, they weren't going to let Hillary get away with anything.
Gee, you have to wonder how much Hillary and the DNC want leaks stopped too.........since you decided to make this partisan out the door......
Well gosh, what does Hillary have to do with it? She isn't president or, did you forget that? The DNC want the leaks stopped but, they also want the elections to be decided by the American people and, not some foreign power like Russia.
Whistle-blowers are protected under the laws when what they leak is evidence of official crimes...
Once all is known about Russia-gate all the whistle-blowers will be haled as heroes and heroins...
Harassing reporters and their sources is par for the course as the administration is falling apart...
When all is said and done history will rank Trump's constitutional crisis as worse than Watergate.
There is no evidence of any "official crimes". And there is no protection if it includes classified material, states secrets, or national security, or was obtained by illegal spying.
Not yet but, Mueller has only been investigating for 18 months, Iran/Contra, Watergate and, all the others went on for years, give it time.
None of this has been proven to be the case, especially the "illegal spying" part, after all he was working for the Senate at the time.
You are conflating leaking and whistleblowing which are not the same thing. . Leaking information about an ongoing investigation isn’t whistleblowing.
which leak from the mueller investigation exposed corrupt corrupt goverment actions, which would be whistleblowing? I don’t recall the New York Times reporting that the Russia investigators were acting corruptly,do you?
this guy just picked sensitive information that would embarrass trump and help his girlfriend reporter make a splash. It’s an insult to actual whistleblowers to compare the two.
Maybe, we will see. The problem isn't that he leaked, it's in the way the DOJ got the evidence, our press is a free press because they can tell their sources that they will be safe but, with the new rules that have been in place since Obama was president that seems to have changed and, it needs to be changed back, sources must be protected.
Gonna call it a night, I'll open it up in the morning.
OK, it's open for business.