Another Journalist Informed Trump DOJ Otained Their Phone And Email Records

from the you're-looking-that-the-wrong-end-of-the-link,-dumbasses dept

It certainly appears the new Attorney General is doing some house cleaning. A pretty steady drip of disclosures have made their way into the public sphere about the DOJ's activities while headed by Bill Barr and overseen by the Trump White House.

A couple of weeks ago it was disclosed that the DOJ had obtained three Washington Post journalists' phone records while investigating leaks related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. More recently, a case involving a Twitter account targeted by a Devin Nunes defamation lawsuit was unsealed, showing the DOJ attempted to force the social media service to turn over identifying info related to the NunesAlt account.

And now there's this: another journalist targeted by the DOJ -- again supposedly to root out the source of White House leaks.

The Justice Department informed CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, in a May 13 letter, that prosecutors had obtained her phone and email records covering two months, between June 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017. The letter listed phone numbers for Starr's Pentagon extension, the CNN Pentagon booth phone number and her home and cell phones, as well as Starr's work and personal email accounts.

The DOJ is well aware this sort of thing looks bad. But that hasn't stopped it from targeting journalists with disturbing frequency. And it's not just a Trump/Barr thing. The Obama Administration did plenty of leak-hunting and it occasionally involved acquiring journalists' communications records. The DOJ slightly dialed back its enthusiasm for targeting journalists briefly after suffering a few PR black eyes, but the election of Trump brought a newfound enthusiasm for viewing journalists as enemies -- something both of Trump's Attorney Generals supported.

The frequency of these disclosures -- three in three weeks -- suggests the DOJ, under AG Merrick Garland, is taking a very close look at the actions of his predecessors and, hopefully, trying to undo some of the damage. At the very least, it looks like the application of some much-needed sunlight -- the sort of thing that's often useful in deterring future abuses.

The DOJ, however, is still using the same excuse for its worrying excursion across First Amendment lines. According to its spokespeople, there's really nothing wrong with using this investigatory tactic.

A Justice Department official confirmed that Starr was never the target of any investigation.

Oh, ok. It's fine that journalists' sources were targeted, not the journalists themselves. As if that doesn't place journalists in difficult positions and the government's apparent willingness to obtain communication records doesn't make it less likely journalists will be handed sensitive documents. I mean, that's obviously the end goal of actions like these, but it doesn't make them any more Constitutionally-sound or any less odious.

Fortunately, it appears the new DOJ boss isn't like the old bosses (Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions). This DOJ appears more willing to steer clear of potential controversy and less likely to view journalists as adversaries.

Anthony Coley, DOJ's director of public affairs and a senior advisor to Attorney General Merrick Garland, said in a statement to CNN that the decision to use the legal process to obtain Starr's communications was approved in 2020, during the Trump administration.

"Department leadership will soon meet with reporters to hear their concerns about recent notices and further convey Attorney General Garland's staunch support of and commitment to a free and independent press," Coley said.

The press hasn't seen much DOJ or Presidential support over the past four years, so this is a welcome improvement. Hopefully, it's sincere and not just a one-time patch job meant to unruffle feathers at major news corporations before proceeding with business as usual.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, barbara starr, doj, email records, journalism, phone records, surveillance, william barr
Companies: cnn


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • identicon
    David, 25 May 2021 @ 4:31am

    No, it's not fine.

    It's fine that journalists' sources were targeted, not the journalists themselves.

    Journalists' communications are protected not because the government wants to figure out how a "conservative" "media" "journalist" fantasizes about election fraud without evidence.

    They are protected because actual journalism requires working with sources other than official press releases, sources that a free press depends on for their part of retaining a free society.

    That's sort of way more important for liberty than being allowed to carry your personal pacifier around in a holster.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 9:56am

      Re: No, it's not fine.

      Thanks for explaining how sarcasm works!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 9:58am

        Re: Re: No, it's not fine.

        (NOTE: That was sarcasm. I was not actually offering sincere thanks to David for explaining how sarcasm works.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 25 May 2021 @ 11:00am

          Re: Re: Re: No, it's not fine.

          Please note that the article follows up with:

          I mean, that's obviously the end goal of actions like these, but it doesn't make them any more Constitutionally-sound or any less odious.

          The problem is that the article presents this as a side effect of violating the constitutional protections of a journalist. But the sole point of the extra protection of journalists is the protection of sources. There is no other reason for journalist privilege.

          It's not a matter of "the end justifies the means", it's the actual end that is the problem here.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 6:16am

    "A Justice Department official confirmed that Starr was never the target of any investigation."

    So because you weren't the target you had no expectation of having rights so we can't have violated them.

    O_O

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 25 May 2021 @ 7:17am

    Quick fix:
    Another Journalist Informed Trump DOJ O^b^tained Their Phone And Email Records

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 9:03am

    Another Journalist Informed Trump DOJ Obtained Their Phone And Email Records

    FTFY

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 11:38am

    Yet another quick fix!

    "... something both of Trump's Attorney Generals"

    It should be Attorneys General...they are attorneys not generals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat

Warning: include(/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/..') in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.