City Desk

Justice Department Confirms Ron Machen Is Running Associated Press Investigation


Good news for D.C. politicos: Corruption-hunting U.S. Attorney Ron Machen has a lot on his plate. While Machen authored the Friday letter that informed the Associated Press that the Department of Justice had secretly seized two months' worth of its phone records, it wasn't clear how closely involved Machen was. Today, however, a DOJ official speaking on background confirmed that Machen is directing the FBI investigation.

But Machen isn't running the operation alone. With Attorney General Eric Holder recused from the case, Machen has been working under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
  • DCGovcorruption

    Someone is about to be run over by the bus and I don't think it will be Holder. Hearings coming up on the Hill and somebody is going to have to testify over and over again. Even the democrats are running from this.

  • FormerBrownSupporter

    This means that Gray can Run for re election!! Yay!

  • truth hurts

    Lawyers for Thompson and Gray are smiling tonight. Machen is spreading himself pretty thin.

  • Ward-8

    The only persons who are raising cane are the news People because this investigation dug deep and may have stopped their inside snitch pool. Specially in this instance when reporters covet their inside information folks as confidential informants who in this case violated his/her security credentials by revealing top secret information to reporters whom I doubt had the security clearance or the need to know and print. They keep using the excuse that the public had a need to know so do our enemies as result of these constant leaks of classified information. To bad no Pulitzer award, get the towel.

  • Typical DC BS

    Ward-8. Maybe you're not old enough to remember the Pentagon Papers. This is settled law - if an informant gives a reporter information, the reporter has NO problem if they choose to publish that information. Just because you don't agree means nothing. Too bad the Obama administration looks bad - they need to realize what they did was ridiculous.

  • noodlez

    @TYP-SLIM YOU KEEP GOING BACK TO THAT TYPICAL PENTAGON BS.

    NO ONE IS TRIPPING OFF THE FACT THAT THE REPORTER IS PUBLISHING THE INFO. THE REPORTER JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT IF SAID QUESTIONABLE INFO GET PUBLISHED THEN REPORTER BETTER HAVE THEIR BASES COVERED AND TIES SEVERED ALONG THE WAY BECAUSE THE U.S. GOV'T HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO LEAKED SENSITIVE INFO NO MATTER THE LEVEL OF CLASSIFIED INFO.

    THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WAS GOING AFTER LEAKERS LAST TERM. HE DOESNT LOOK RIDICULOUS TO FOLK WHO CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY BUT ONLY TO FOOLS WHO CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES. DUDE CHECK THE MIRROR!

    YES WE CAN.
    YES HE DID!

  • tony

    Noddlez, excellent point. Brother Machen and President Obama will survive this media created scandal.

  • SEis4ME

    The

  • SEis4ME

    The media didn't create the IRS, AP nor the Benghazi stories, the Obama Administration did and the manner in which they've decided to handle them all assures that this will continue to be their said scandal.

  • tony

    You working under the assumption that the media version of the events are accurate and history tell us otherwise.

  • tony

    correction:
    You are working under the assumption that the media’s version of the events is accurate but history tells us otherwise.

    I know how important correct grammar is to people on a casual blog. lol!

  • SEis4ME

    History tells us what? That A White House's version of event is accurate while the media's isn't? Really? In what alternate universe have you been living?

    Bush was more truthful than the media that covered him? Really?

    Wow

  • tony

    History tells us what?
    - A lot.

    That A White House's version of event is accurate while the media's isn't?
    - Baseless question.

    Really? In what alternate universe have you been living?
    - The United States of America.

    Bush was more truthful than the media that covered him? Really?

    -

    Wow

  • SEis4ME

    Of course you would think it baseless. You sat here and posited the idea that "history" has shown us that the media's version of events don't reflect the actual truth. Considering that we are talking about...hmm...well..the media version of events vs. a WHITE HOUSE, it stands to reason that you believe White House's are more correct than the media.

    Yet, you provide no anecdotal information to the contrary.

    Which is expected.

  • Typical DC BS

    @SEis4ME: Exactly. The White House is tone deaf and in way over it's head on this matter. Sorry noodlez, this is a scandal, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Even Democrats are up in arms about the Obama administration's actions.

  • tony

    @SEis4ME

    You sat here and posited the idea that "history" has shown us that the media's version of events don't reflect the actual truth.

    -Wrong, I made a statement which was “You are working under the assumption that the media’s version of the events is accurate but history tells us otherwise.” This is a statement. It’s not an idea.

    Considering that we are talking about...hmm...well..the media version of events vs. a WHITE HOUSE, it stands to reason that you believe White House's are more correct than the media.

    -Wrong, I was talking specifically about President Obama and the criticism that he endured concerning allegations reported by the press.

    Clearly, you have no problem debating yourself so I will allow you to do just that.

  • SEis4ME

    You are working under the assumption that the media’s version of the events is accurate but history tells us otherwise.

    Yet, again, you fail to any sort of anecdote that would validate your "statement."

    -Wrong, I was talking specifically about President Obama and the criticism that he endured concerning allegations reported by the press.

    And you somehow think saying, "You are working under the assumption that the media’s version of the events is accurate but history tells us otherwise," is akin to the belief that Obama endured false allegation by the press? Yet you STILL fail to provide any evidence of the press' history of falsely accusing the WH.

    It's probably best that you do not respond because if it resembles anything close to the nonsense you posted here, you continue to look ridiculous.

  • noodlez

    @TYP-I WELCOME THOSE DEMS WHO ARE UP IN ARMS. THAT IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT! THEY HAVE IDEAS, THOUGHTS AND ARE ALIVE.

    UNLIKE THE REDUMBLICANS WHO ARE IN LOCK STEP EVEN WHEN THOSE LOCK STEPS LEAD THEM DOWN THE WRONG PATH LIKE DYSFUNCTIONAL DRONES.

    @SE-UMM THE ASSOC PRESS(MEDIA) CREATED THIS MESS WHEN THEY PUBLISHED STORY. BENGHAZI IS CONSTANTLY BEING CYCLED THRU THE PRESS AS FILLER FOR TIME SLOTS. SLIM ALL THE BLUSTER SURROUNDING THE EXEC BRANCH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TWITTER BUILT CONTROVERSY THAT EVOLVED INTO "A BLOCK" NEWS STORIES.

    YALL BAMMAS NEED TO STAND DOWN!

  • tony

    @ SEis4ME

    I promised not to respond anymore but the information given to general public is so offensively false, I almost feel obligated to respond.

    Clearly, anyone who would tell the general public that the use of anecdotes “would validate your statement” may not be as smart as they think.

    This is absolutely false. One is not required to use anecdotes or any other parables when making statements. And the validity of a statement is not determined by anecdotal evidence. In fact, anecdotal evidence should NEVER be used to determine the validity of a statement or anything else. NOW, I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THAT!

    Now on to your other question.

    - And you somehow think saying, "You are working under the assumption that the media’s version of the events is accurate but history tells us otherwise," is akin to the belief that Obama endured false allegation by the press? Yet you STILL fail to provide any evidence of the press' history of falsely accusing the WH.

    Let me help you out. Sometimes the best of us need a little help. lol!

    I believe that you made the statement in comment #14 that “Considering that we are talking about...hmm...well..the media version of events vs. a WHITE HOUSE, it stands to reason that you believe White House's are more correct than the media.”

    To which I replied: Wrong, I was talking specifically about President Obama and the criticism that he endured concerning allegations reported by the press.

    My response was meant to counter your false assumption that “I believe White House's are more correct than the media.” I did not uttered one word about “the press' history of falsely accusing the WH.” In fact, I used the word “criticism”. And, I hate to tell you that “criticism” and “falsely accusing” are two different things.

    Let me help you out again.

    RULE 1, when debating, NEVER, NEVER, make a counter point based on what you assume the opposing party meant. All rebuttals must be made based on the actual statements made by the opposing party.

    I give you an example, using your words.

    It's probably best that you do not respond because if it resembles anything close to the nonsense you posted here, you continue to look ridiculous.

    My Response: I am sure you agree, RIGHT? LOL!

  • tony

    @ SEis4ME

    I promised not to respond anymore but the information given to general public is so offensively false, I almost feel obligated to respond.

    Clearly, anyone who would tell the general public that the use of anecdotes “would validate your statement” may not be as smart as they think.

    This is absolutely false. One is not required to use anecdotes or any other parables when making statements. And the validity of a statement is not determined by anecdotal evidence. In fact, anecdotal evidence should NEVER be used to determine the validity of a statement or anything else. NOW, I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THAT!

    Now on to your other question.

    - And you somehow think saying, "You are working under the assumption that the media’s version of the events is accurate but history tells us otherwise," is akin to the belief that Obama endured false allegation by the press? Yet you STILL fail to provide any evidence of the press' history of falsely accusing the WH.

    Let me help you out. Sometimes the best of us need a little help. lol!

    I believe that you made the statement in comment #14 that “Considering that we are talking about...hmm...well..the media version of events vs. a WHITE HOUSE, it stands to reason that you believe White House's are more correct than the media.”

    To which I replied: Wrong, I was talking specifically about President Obama and the criticism that he endured concerning allegations reported by the press.

    My response was meant to counter your false assumption that “I believe White House's are more correct than the media.” I did not uttered one word about “the press' history of falsely accusing the WH.” In fact, I used the word “criticism”. And, I hate to tell you that “criticism” and “falsely accusing” are two different things.

    Let me help you out again.

    RULE 1, when debating, NEVER, NEVER, make a counter point based on what you assume the opposing party meant. All rebuttals must be made based on the actual statements made by the opposing party.

    I give you an example, using your words.

    It's probably best that you do not respond because if it resembles anything close to the nonsense you posted here, you continue to look ridiculous.

    My Response: I am sure you agree, RIGHT? LOL!

  • SEis4ME

    UMM THE ASSOC PRESS(MEDIA) CREATED THIS MESS WHEN THEY PUBLISHED STORY

    That they had every right to publish.

    BENGHAZI IS CONSTANTLY BEING CYCLED THRU THE PRESS AS FILLER FOR TIME SLOTS

    Sure it is because that's what the media does..they've just been much more favorable to Obama. Same thing happens to republicans.

    THE BLUSTER SURROUNDING THE EXEC BRANCH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TWITTER BUILT CONTROVERSY THAT EVOLVED INTO "A BLOCK" NEWS STORIES.

    People were killed, groups were unfairly targeted, and the gov't seized phone records. Those facts aren't twitter built. But I do agree w/the idea that the outrage is somewhat manufactured. I also happen to be certain that if the exact same scenario played out under a republican POTUS, you and most others wouldn't consider it "built by twitter."

  • noodlez

    @SE-DUDE I AGREE WITH YOUR LAST SENTENCE HOWEVA THIS PRESIDENT IS BEING TREATED LIKE THE UP NORTH BLACK MAN THAT THE SOUTHERN WHITE GIRL BROUGHT HOME TO MEET HER PARENTS!

    THE REDUMBLICANS ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO DING HIM ON AND THEY ARE OVERREACHING AT EVERY TURN TO DIMINISH THIS PRESIDENT'S LEGACY.

    ALL THE WHILE HOLDING THIS COUNTRY HOSTAGE BY CONSTANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY RECYCLING ISSUES BY LOOKING IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR EYES ON THE ROAD.

    THIS WILL BE A NON ISSUE NEXT WEEK FOR ALL OF US LEVEL HEADED FOLK HOWEVA THEM BAMMAS ON THE RIGHT WILL STILL BE FOCUSED ON THE SHINY OBJECT SWINGING ON THE REAR VIEW MIRROR.

  • SEis4ME

    I'm not sure the racial connection is as prominent as many suggest. I believe the mere fact that he is black makes any attacks against him seem so. Example, can you imagine the furor if Obama went somewhere and in the midst of an event had a shoe thrown at him? I have no doubts that calls of racism would by trotted out by the very same media and the entire democratic establishment. Yet, Bush had one thrown at him and it was considered a punchline.

    Democrats attempted to attach any scandal to Bush. We just did and my point here is that this happens irrespective of which political party is in office.

    Most people are likely against Obama because they simply don't like him rather than because of his race...much like Bush.

  • noodlez

    SLIM YOU CANT BE FUCKING SERIOUS!
    IF YOU ARE? YOUR WHOLE PREMISE IS COMPROMISED TO THE N'TH DEGREE! THE WHOLE FAKE ASS SCANDAL IS RACIAL DRIVEN!

    WHAT SUSAN RICE (A SISTER THAT IS CLEAN AND SCANDAL FREE)SAID ABOUT BENGHAZI WAS DRIVEN BY A STUPID ASS REDUMBLICAN, DAVID PETRAUS WHO IS SCANDAL LADEN.

    THEY WHINED ABOUT LEAKS THEN WHEN LEAKS ARE INVESTIGATED BY A BROTHER THEY HATE (HOLDER) THEY WHINED ABOUT THAT! THE EXAGGERATION BEING PLACED BEHIND THIS SHAMOCKERY SHOWS THE LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE OF SAID SCANDALS. THEY AMOUNT TO NOTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE FROSTING INSTEAD OF THE CAKE.

    SE4ME, ONLY OLD THREATENED INADEQUATE PASTY ASS WHITE MEN DONT LIKE HIM AND THOSE ARE THE DRIVERS OF THIS SORRY ASS NARRATIVE.

  • SEis4ME

    There are many things I might consider "racially" driven but these are not the ones.

    Democrats had the same level of whining, calls for impeachment, comparisons to Hitler etc during Bush's administration. Were those racially driven attacks on white men? Of course not and neither is this.

    Democrats and the media made much ado about nothing wrt to "corporations are people," "I'm not concerned about the poor" and others. Those too, weren't racially-driven against Romney.

    Your perspective is partisan and racial so I understand how you could view things as you do. It's your orientation.

  • noodlez

    I CANT RECALL DEMS SEEKING TO IMPEACH BUSH?
    IMPEACH HIM FOR WHAT? HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING THE ENTIRE 8 YEARS HE WAS IN OFFICE. I ACTUALLY FELT SORRY FOR W BECAUSE I KNEW CHENEY WAS RUNNING SHIT AND CALLING SHOTS.

    BUSH COULDNT FUNCTION ANY LONGER BECAUSE HE STOPPED DRINKING AND DRUGGING. HE WAS JUST A FIGURE HEAD LIKE MOST REDUMBLICAN PRESIDENTS WHO ARE DRIVEN BY CORPORATE MONEY.

    SLIM YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MIND BECAUSE YOU ARE BLIND TO THE FACTS AND A SLAVE TO THE RHYTHM!

  • tony

    @noodlez

    Some people are a lost cause. It's better to focus on those persons who can be reached and who respects your views and perspective. Believe me, there's a lot of folks who are influenced by your thoughts and writings. Focus on them. Peace.

  • SEis4ME

    I CANT RECALL DEMS SEEKING TO IMPEACH BUSH?
    IMPEACH HIM FOR WHAT?

    Really? WOW! I immediately thought of McKinney and Ellison but thanks to wiki, there were even more:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

    You somewhat seem like a smart cat. But I imagine that the reason you "believe" there were no calls for impeachment is because of what I've been pointing out here. It's your political disposition which makes you likely to "reimagine" history to defend a certain pov. You can see it here w/in our own discussion where, in an effort to rebut the fact that both sides play these silly game, you don't even remember the calls for Bush's head.

  • SEis4ME

    Clearly, you have no problem debating yourself so I will allow you to do just that....[and although]...I promised not to respond anymore but the information given to general public is so offensively false, I almost feel obligated to respond.

    And then you write an entire essay about it?

    Whether you call it anecdote or smoking boat, you clearly responded to what I said with the belief that the there's a history of "false reporting" wrt to Obama not "criticism." Yet, you provide nothing. You offer zilch to back it up. So go ahead, deflect as you must. You have no substantive rebuttal to what I said and decided it best to deflect w/the essay. We get it.

    You happen to be the last person on earth that I would accept guidance from about the art of discussion/debate. But I do find your commentary mildly entertaining...like watching the drunk man dance on the corner to his own head's music..until he starts pissing on himself.

  • tony

    @SEis4me, that's right because you know that I am right.

    Besides, I usually don't talk to dirty queens like you. In fact, back in the day people threw rocks at useless trash like you.

    So, do the world a favor and cut your throat from ear to ear. Your infection is taking too long to reach it end-stages.

  • noodlez

    @SE-THANKS FOR THE INFO.
    ALL OF THOSE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES!
    THE DIFFERENCE BEING THOSE WASN'T FRONT PAGE NEWS 5 DAYS OF THE WEEK WHICH IS WHY I DON'T REMEMBER!

    SLIM I DONT REIMAGINE!
    I REMEMBER.

    THE BUSH ADMIN WAS THE WORST IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND FOR YOU TO COMPARE THE CURRENT ONE TO IT JUST PROVES MY POINT!

    I STAND BY #26 COMMENT!

  • SEis4ME

    Besides, I usually don't talk to dirty queens like you.

    You see it here again folks! I've long told you that Tony was a fraud. Now you see just for yourself how he fashions himself as the (black) voice of reason and insight who both solicits/grants respect and in the very next breath can show you just how much of a cacophony of ratchedness his life really is. I mean, who else uses the term "dirty queen" (referring to ANYBODY other than royalty) in ANY discussion? ESPECIALLY to a man? Who does that?

    Tony and his flip-flop loving, dirty feet/muffin top-having, Nicki Minaj pink lipstick/dingy blonde weave-wearing, female injected-hormone alter ego, Tonika "Ratchet is My Middle Name" Anderson." That's who.

    I told ya'll....

  • SEis4ME

    @Noodlez, no problem. I'm always willing to provide links to any facts/opinions I might have.

    I imagine that in 5 years, you would've also forgotten that these stories were front page news. If they were impeachable offenses, he would've been impeached. That's fact..not spin/opinion.

    We should compare the two because they both held the same office. While the polling my indicate Bush was the worst in history, the facts will be on his side. We were kept safe, most of us purchased our first homes, and have traveled up the corporate ladder during his time in office.

    I can be honest and nonpartisan and point out that most people I know made significant advances during his time in office. Now the thing is, most of them complain about how bad it was as well...but just not for them...lol

  • Wait, What?

    Well done SEis4ME, tony was absolutely crushed in this comment thread.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33

  • Pingback: watch tv show episodes

  • Pingback: stream movies

  • Pingback: Website

  • Pingback: lan penge online nu

  • Pingback: xnxx

  • Pingback: laane penge

  • Pingback: car parking

  • Pingback: parking

  • Pingback: paypal loans

...