Mediaboss Marketing

The Justice Departments pledge that it will no longer secretly obtain the records of journalists has left a number of unanswered questions about the departments handling of leak investigations initiated under the Trump-era.

It's not clear what high ranking Biden officials knew and when as DOJproceeded with cases involving reporters from three different media outlets orwhy the department continued to push for gag orders in two cases even after PresidentBiden said late last month that seizure of journalist records was "simply simply wrong."

Press advocates were happy to see Justice reverse itselfSaturdayand say it would no longer target journalists, but they also point out theyd like to know more.

Its a welcome policy change, but part of the problem is what we just don't know. We have significant unanswered questions with regard to what happened in all three cases, said Gabe Rottman, director of the Technology and Press Freedom Project with The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Justice notified reporters itreceived phone records from CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times, while email logs were obtained for CNN.

The investigations were all tied to stories each outlet had written in the early days of the Trump administration. That includes an investigation into whether former FBI Director James ComeyJames Brien ComeyNYT publisher: DOJ phone records seizure a 'dangerous incursion' on press freedom Trump DOJ seized phone records of New York Times reporters The FBI should turn off the FARA faucet MORE shared details with reporters about a document that influenced his decision to close an investigation into Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonAuthor James Patterson: 'Fiction still works' Florida Rep. Val Demings officially enters Senate race against Rubio McAuliffe wins Democratic primary in Virginia governor's race MORE.

During the time period in which records were sought, The Post also published a story about former Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsDemocrats claim vindication, GOP cries witch hunt as McGahn finally testifies CNN reporter's phone and email records secretly obtained by Trump administration: report Biden looks to expand legal assistance for minorities, low-income Americans MOREs contact with Russian officials and CNN reported on U.S. military proposals on North Korea.

This saga is just another reminder that much of what occurs in government is due to institutional practice, and that a mere shift in political power doesnt immediately halt all ongoing executive branch actions, Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, told The Hill by email, noting that former President TrumpDonald TrumpFormer House Republican to challenge DeWine for Ohio gubernatorial nomination GOP senators press Justice Department to compare protest arrests to Capitol riot Overnight Defense: Austin directs classified initiatives to counter China | Biden emphasizes alliances in speech to troops | Lockdown lifted at Texas base after reported shooting MORE expanded leak investigation practices used under the Bush and Obama administrations.

The current leadership under [Attorney General Merrick] Garland is trying to sort out particular actions they believe warrant continuing for institutional and legal reasons, as opposed to those such as the surveillance of reporters communications they no longer view as necessary or appropriate.

The seizures were a deviation from a Justice Department policy that typically requires the department to notify reporters as soon as their records are sought.

But the Trump administration took advantage of a provision that allows the attorney general to delay notification if there is a threat to the integrity of the investigation or a risk of grave harm to national security or death.

In such cases the Justice Department is required to disclose that the records were obtained within 45 days, though the attorney general can extend that period for another 45 days.

The timeframe largely left the task to fall on the Biden administration, though its not clear if the Biden Justice Department met the 90-day requirement for notifying reporters.

Justice did not respond to a request from The Hill on this matter.

Its also not completely clear how high up the chain decisions were made or why Justice continued to push for secrecy after Bidens May 21 comments.

The department continued to seek gag orders on lawyers at both The New York Times and CNN to prevent attorneys from sharing the legal matter with new executives or reporters.

According to reporting from The New York Times, the Bidens Justice Department fought into the first days of March to keep Google, The Times email provider, from notifying the papers lawyer about the attempts to seize reporter emails.

Even after Garland was sworn in on March 11, Justice sought to keep The Times lawyer from sharing the details of the case beyond a few top executives a position it did not reverse until June 2.

The White House said it was not aware of the gag order until the agency relented in court.

As appropriate given the independence of the Justice Department in specific criminal cases, no one at the White House was aware of the gag order until Friday night, White House Press Secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiNew report reignites push for wealth tax Democrats blast Biden climate adviser over infrastructure remarks Manchin says Biden has not pressured him to support elections, spending bills MORE said in a statement.

But even after the Justice statement Saturday, the agency still hadnt resolved a similar gag order with CNNs lawyer, which wasnt lifted by a judge until Wednesday.

Justice is facing calls to more fully explain what happened.

We need to know precisely who authored what, when the records were sought, when they were received, why the decision to delay notification was made we just need a full accounting of precisely what happened in all three of these cases, Rottman said.

And that full accounting is a prerequisite for determining whether additional policy reforms are warranted to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Justice has said it has no pending compulsory requests from reporters in leak investigations.

Going forward, consistent with the presidents direction, this Department of Justice in a change to its longstanding practice will not seek compulsory legal process in leak investigations to obtain source information from members of the news media doing their jobs. The Department strongly values a free press, protecting First Amendment values, and is committed to taking all appropriate steps to ensure the independence of journalists, DOJ spokesman Anthony Coley said Saturday.

But some are concerned the new policy may not be protective enough.

The new policy only applies in leak investigations and only to members of the news media and only when they are doing their jobs so it's not clear who the DOJ would count as members of the news media or what is means when it says theyre doing their jobs, so we need more information on what the policy actually is, said Anna Diakun, a staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

Garland said at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday that he would issue a memo soon to solidify the media policy changes.

The president has made clear his view about the First Amendment and it coincides with mine, he said. Going forward, we have adopted a policy which is the most protective of journalists' ability to do their jobs in history.

But its not an issue likely to go away. At the same hearing Wednesday, Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsPress: Joe Manchin ain't no profile in courage Senate passes bill to provide payments to 'Havana syndrome' victims On The Money: White House sees paths forward on infrastructure despite stalled talks | Biden battles Dem divides | FBI seizes bitcoin ransom paid by Colonial Pipeline MORE (R-Maine) asked if Justice would be investigating a breach, pointing to a ProPublica article analyzing the taxes paid by some of the wealthiest Americans after obtaining their confidential records.

Garland said only that he was sure that that means it will be referred to the Justice Department.

Media advocates also want Justice to do more to ensure the policy change will be lasting.

This is a reminder that DOJs protections for the news media are subject to change at the whim of an administration. There's nothing to stop President BidenJoe BidenWhite House announces major boost to global vaccine supply U.S. in talks to buy Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine to send abroad: report Pentagon to consider authorizing airstrikes in Afghanistan if country falls into crisis: report MORE from walking this commitment back in the future or a later administration from reversing this policy altogether. And without this certainty reporters and their sources just can't be sure whether their communications will be protected and that has a significant chilling effect, Diakun added.

Justices use of the 1917 Espionage Act to seek reporter records has dramatically ticked up over the last 20 years, with the Bush and Obama administrations also relying on the law to go after leakers.

The latest episodes have renewed calls for a federal shield law, modeled after numerous state laws that protects the rights of reporters to refuse to testify about sources of information obtained during the newsgathering process.

Jake Laperruque, senior counsel for The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, said the real test will be whether the department pushes for legislative changes.

If were going to stop a [seizure] policy that happens again and again we need a law to stop it, he said, adding that the record of the last 20 years indicates the tendency is to do the opposite.

Its not going to be enough to be responsible in the moment. If you want to make sure youre actually protecting civil rights and civil liberties, you have to push for changes that are actually going to bind future administrations.

See more here:
Mystery surrounds Justice's pledge on journalist records | TheHill - The Hill