Cruising the Web

So Holder was the one who signed off on the warrant for James Rosen's records and labeling him as a "possible co-conspirator." How many more has he signed off on? He can't remember. So it makes perfect sense for Obama to put Holder in charge of an effort to review guidelines for leak investigations. It is quite clear that Holder has gone against what the Supreme Court has consistently ruled about prosecuting journalists for publishing leaks about illegally obtained information. The Espionage Act has never been enforced against journalists. Yet that is what Eric Holder signed off on. Did Obama even talk to Holder about what went on with the Rosen warrant before asking him to revamp these guidelines? Holder was already violating current DOJ guidelines on a narrow warrant to track down leaks.

How very un-Sweden-like. The Swedish have spent the past five nights seeing riots break out in immigrant nieghborhoods as people set fire to cars.

Conn Carroll writes: "Obama has droned more Americans than Bush waterboarded terrorists." Ha!

The Obama campaign began in 2008 to try to sic the government on opposition groups.

So what did Obama really announce yesterday that he would replace "nothing with nothing.
Yup. That about sums it up.

He is claiming victory but everyone knows that the War on Terror is not over. Even Obama, as John Podhoretz writes,

But this highlights a logical contradiction at the core of the speech. In the end, the use of drones as an anti-terror tool is only legal because of the Authorization to Use Military Force — the very thing Obama wants repealed.

That doesn’t make sense.

Indeed, in the end, this nearly 7,000-word speech failed to achieve the balance he wanted between Obama the 2008 Dove and Obama the 2012 Hawk. He can’t write the War on Terror out of existence while reserving to himself the right to go on fighting terrorists with the tools he is only permitted to use because that war exists.

Obama tries to blame the Republicans for his inability to close Gitmo, but that ignores the opposition he has had in the Democratic Party to his efforts.

The IRS story becomes even more disturbing. Now we find out that they were also targeting parents who adopt children. Why would that be a group that the IRS wanted to single out? David French, an adoptive parent, has a post describing what one family went through to comply with the IRS audit.

As Jonah Goldberg writes, don't forget that the First Amendment also preserves our freedom of religion, assembly, and petitioning the government.

The IRS scandal and the DOJ’s assault on the press may be two separate issues, but they are both about the First Amendment. The groups the IRS discriminated against wanted to exert their First Amendment rights to assemble, to petition government, and to speak freely. Then–House speaker Nancy Pelosi dubbed angry voters at local town-hall meetings “un-American.”

Some Americans wanted to exercise their religious conscience. (James Madison, author of the First Amendment, said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”) The IRS told one pro-life group in Iowa that it had to promise — on pain of perjury — not to protest Planned Parenthood. That is an outrageous assault on the First Amendment as disgusting as anything aimed at the AP or Fox News.

By all means, journalists should be outraged by the president’s attitude toward the press. But if you’re going to call yourself a defender of the First Amendment, please defend the whole thing and not just the parts you make a living from.

Scott Johnson publishes an interesting letter from a long-time IRS investigator about a part of the law regulating the IRS that may well have been violated by the IRS scandal.

It's to the point that one could think that this satire is actually true.

In a dramatic departure from existing White House procedures, President Obama requested today that his staff start cc’ing him on stuff.

“Look, I know a lot of you think I’m really busy and you don’t want to bother me,” the President reportedly told his staff in an Oval Office meeting. “But cc me anyway. It’s good for me to keep up on what’s going on around here.”

“It’s not good when I turn on the news and they’re talking about something at the White House and I’m like, whoa, when did that happen?” Mr. Obama added. “I think cc’ing me would go a long way toward fixing that.”

This is a rather embarrassing revelation about what a young JFK thought of Hitler before WWII.

Jay Leno is playing equal time in ridiculing President Obama. That's a real switch from the late-night comics.

Cruising the Web

In the Obama view of government, the President is not responsible for what is done by the government because the government is so large he can't know what is going on. This is a dangerous view of accountability in government.

If the scandal is showing anything, it is that the White House has a bizarre notion of accountability in the federal government. President Obama's former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC recently that his guy was off the hook on the IRS scandal because "part of being President is there's so much beneath you that you can't know because the government is so vast."

In other words, the bigger the federal government grows, the less the President is responsible for it. Mr. Axelrod's remarkable admission, and the liberal media defenses of Mr. Obama's lack of responsibility, prove the tea party's point that an ever larger government has become all but impossible to govern. They also show once again that liberals are good at promising the blessings of government largesse but they leave its messes for others to clean up.

Alexander Hamilton and America's Founders designed the unitary executive for the purpose of political accountability. It is one of the Constitution's main virtues. Unlike grunts in Cincinnati, Presidents must face the voters. That accountability was designed to extend not only to the President's inner circle but over the entire branch of government whose leaders he chooses and whose policies bear his signature.

If the President isn't accountable, then we really have the tea party nightmare of the runaway administrative state accountable to no one. If Mr. Obama and his aides are to be taken at their word, that is exactly what we have.

Daniel Henninger expands on the dangers of Obama's theory of non-accountability.

It isn't just these scandals. Rather than delivering good, smart or transparent government, the Obama policy squads are doing what happens after they realize the "good" model isn't working as they planned. Then we get what's coming to light now—government that coerces people or pushes past the law's limits. This is government gone wild.

Here are two examples of the coercion default. The first is the administration's use of "disparate impact," a statistical divining rod deployed in a widening array of federal antidiscrimination lawsuits. Its leading proponent is Thomas Perez, the Justice Department official Mr. Obama nominated to be secretary of labor, a department whose enforcement powers blanket the workplace. A Senate vote for Mr. Perez is to confirm disparate impact to the outer federal galaxy.

Then there is ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board. This 15-member panel will order change in the health-care industry. Both of these represent a level of coercion—call it command-and-obey—that is alien to the American experience. Years hence, federal Dilberts toiling in some IRS outpost in Omaha will be blamed for abusive ObamaCare prosecutions. How is a busy president to know about beatings in the provinces?

The IRS audit scandal is this government's most famous break through the boundaries of the law. But arguably the greater grab for extralegal power was the president's 2012 "recess" appointments—overturned by an appellate court—to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Obama's goal was to get two potent bureaucracies in motion producing command-and-obey rules. The recess appointments and Cincinnati audits spring from the same well.

The idea that banks can grow too big to fail is seen by many as a danger to the system. The proposition forcing itself into public discussion in the second Obama term is that the government in Washington can become too big to be good.

For Obama, the government can do anything and everything, but there can be no accountability when the government "goes wild." That is why conservatives stress the Founders' view of limited government - because a government that can do everything, will do anything.

Nick Gillespie explains the President's unconstitutional approach to journalism.

The press-punishing, speech-chilling, and unabashedly overreaching actions by the Obama administration against the Associated Press and Fox News Channel’s James Rosen lay bare the essential dynamic between any president and a press that is always more prone to being lapdogs than watchdogs: the president feeds or punishes them as he sees fit, while chanting a bogus rosary about “national security.”

The former head of the IRS, Douglas Shulman can't even say that what the IRS was doing to target conservative groups violated American values.

The IRS scandal was the real voter suppression in the 2012 election. Even a Politico reporter agrees.

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is just another weapon used by Democrats who want to limit political speech.

Ignoring their own share of responsibility, campaign-finance reformers and their allies are now pressing to broaden the IRS crackdown to apply to all tax-exempt organizations. In their view, the problem is not only with express political advocacy, but with all tax-exempt activities that might have political overtones, or be related to political issues. Indeed, many argue that such organizations should be conspicuously apolitical.

This is wrong as a matter of law and policy. Congress doesn't have to provide tax-exempt status to social-welfare organizations, but having done so it cannot discriminate by the kind of advocacy in which such groups engage. To say that such activities can have no political implications is an insult to common sense. In a vibrant democracy, every major policy debate has political implications.

The spirited debate about policy issues should be at the core of social-welfare organizations. Politics is how we govern ourselves and political speech is essential to self-governance. The fact that 501(c)(4) group contributors aren't subject to campaign disclosure requirements is a good thing.

There is nothing inherently evil about anonymous political speech. It is firmly anchored in our political and legal culture and was used by the Framers during the founding. Hamilton, Madison and Jay published their Federalist Papers under a pseudonym. The fact that the IRS was able to target conservative donors—similar to the way donors to the NAACP were targeted at the height of the civil-rights battles—shows how disclosure can lead to speech-suppressing government actions.

Jon Stewart has some fun with all the lack of accountability exhibited by IRS officials who claim to know nothing.

Jay Carney's comparison of legitimate questions about Benghazi and the IRS to questions about Obama's birth certificate betrays the real contempt that the Obama administration holds for reporters.

Michael A. Walsh notes something about the leaks that the DOJ has chosen to prosecute by abusing journalists' rights.

First, note that the leaks they’ve opted to plumb are ones detrimental to the president’s media image as the scourge of al Qaeda and defender of the realm.

Second, there’s a big difference between actual spies and reporters doing their jobs. In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (also an Espionage Act case, by the way), the Supreme Court took no position on the act itself, but ruled against the Nixon administration’s attempt to restrain The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the purloined Vietnam War documents.

Said Justice Hugo Black: “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

Not that any of this seems to matter to this administration, which openly refers to its ideological opponents as “enemies.”

So why would the White House Counsel tell the White House Chief of Staff about the IRS inspector general report and the Chief of Staff not tell the President? Was it to preserve "plausible deniability?"

George Will expands on the administration's unconstitutional actions with respect to recess appointments and the NLRB's continued ignoring of the appellate court ruling that their actions are unlawful because Obama's recess appointments were unlawful and the board lacks a quorum.

Andrew McCarthy explains how Darrell Issa messed up his handling of Lois Lerner's invocation of the Fifth Amendment yesterday. What I'm wondering is what will happen if he calls her back in light of her statement and says that she has waived her right. She'll take the Fifth again. Then what? The House holds her in contempt of Congress but then they'd depend on the DOJ to imprison her. And isn't this the same DOJ headed by Eric Holder who himself has been held in contempt of Congress to no discernible effect.

Karen Tumulty explains the differences between the Anthony Weiner and Mark Sanford scandals and how those differences make it unlikely that Weiner will win the mayoral election in New York City.

This is a truly moving story about how hundreds of police officers went to the kindergarten graduation of the daughter of one of their fellow officers who was killed over the weekend.

Cruising the Web

Yes, the Obama administration has an enemies list.

I hadn't realized the IRS rule preventing charitable organizations from endorsing or opposing a political candidate entered our system because Lyndon Johnson wanted to stifle independent groups that opposed his reelection as senator.

Lois Lerner of the IRS has a history of harassing religious organizations about their beliefs and practices from back in her time as head of the Enforcement Office at the FEC. She is going to take the Fifth to refuse to answer questions about the IRS targeting of conservative groups. But she cannot take the Fifth for her practices at the FEC so perhaps the congressional committee members stymied from getting information from her about the IRS might ask her why she took it on herself to direct questions to the Christian Coalition and Oliver North about whether or not Pat Robertson was praying for Oliver North as part of an investigation under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Reading the transcript of the questions that the FEC under Lerner's direction were asking about the content of an individual's prayers is truly chilling and reminiscent of the sorts of questions that the IRS was asking of conservative pro-life groups.

Another day, more Pinocchios for the administration's attempts to push back on the Benghazi story.

Jay Leno manages to ridicule both the media and the Obama administration in one skit.

Noah Rothman of Mediate predicts that the media will erupt now that we have learned how extensively the Department of Justice has been abusing its subpoena power to intimidate both the AP and James Rosen of Fox News.

The Obama administration dares the press to respond to these provocations in a traditional, adversarial fashion. This White House has taken the support they enjoyed from the press corps during Obama’s first term for granted. Today, the media simmers, having been dismissed as a potent force capable of holding this White House accountable, eager to demonstrate just how effective they are.

The White House has greatly underestimated the press and their reverence for the sacred function they perform in a healthy democracy. The political media’s admiration for the president, someone who largely shares their philosophy and pedigree, is a pale shadow in comparison to the esteem with which they hold their own institution.

A storm is coming for the Obama administration. There is no stronger animosity than the one born of spurned affection. Now legitimately mistreated and aggrieved, the press is coming for this White House.

I won't hold my breath, but I will treasure the irony that it was the administration's targeting of a Fox News reporter that may well be the straw that cools the media's love affair with Barack Obama.

And Dana Milbank is one journalist who finds the Obama administration's spying on James Rosen as a bridge too far.

But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.

Beyond that, the administration’s actions shatter the president’s credibility and discourage allies who would otherwise defend the administration against bogus accusations such as those involving the Benghazi “talking points.” If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions — well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing?

It is now clear that the direction of the Cincinnati office of the IRS was being directed by the Technical Unit in Washington. The intrusive questionnaire came from Washington. Eliana Johnson's report of how much of the direction of the IRS targeting came from the IRS offices in Washington, not Cincinnati as the IRS would like us to believe.

Jonah Goldberg points out that the administration's defense in all the scandals breaking around Obama is that the administration is incompetent and stupid.

Although there’s still a great deal to be learned about the scandals and controversies swirling around the White House like so many ominous dorsal fins in the surf, the nature of President Obama’s bind is becoming clear. The best defenses of his administration require undermining the rationale for his presidency.

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It’s actually closer to us being idiots.” So far, this is the administration’s best defense.

The big problem with that defense is that it undermines the entire justification for the lightworker's presidency.

For Obama, the only things separating America from redemption are politics, specifically obstruction from unhinged Republicans and others clinging to outdated and vaguely illegitimate motives. Opposition to gun control is irrational because the “government is us.” Reject warnings “that tyranny is always lurking,” he told the graduating class at Ohio State, because a self-governing people cannot tyrannize themselves.

But, suddenly, when the administration finds itself ensnared by errors of its own making, the curtain is drawn back on the cult of expertise and the fantasy of statist redemption. Early on in the IRS scandal, before the agency’s initial lies were exposed, David Axelrod defended the administration on the grounds that the “government is so vast” the president “can’t know” what’s going on “underneath” him. Of course, it was Obama who once said, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.”

That is, when things are going relatively well. When scandal hits the fan, he goes from the “government is us” to talking of his own agencies the way a czar might dismiss an injustice in some Siberian backwater. The hubris of omnicompetence gives way to “lighten up, we’re idiots.”

They can't have it both ways, but they'll sure try. The government can do anything, except when bad things happen.

Philip Klein explains why the GOP's focus on Obama scandals won't explode in 2014 as their focus on Clinton's scandals hurt the Republicans in 1998.

The left thinks that they have proprietary ownership of the term "dog whistle."

How cozy that a liberal think tank was willing to sell out to General Motors and other businesses in order to support the Obama administration.

Cruising the Web

Gabriel Malor notes the contradictions within the administration's response to the IRS story.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the White House's actions and the White House's words on the IRS scandal. The White House has repeatedly claimed that the President is "outraged" over the targeting -- but there are surprisingly few actual consequences for outraging the leader of the free world. One of the folks involved in harassing conservatives got a promotion. Another got several thousands of dollars in bonuses. Even the thought of legal consequences is tossed aside as "irrelevant."

So why is the President so outraged if the story is "irrelevant"?

As Ed Rogers writes, "'nothing to see here' is not a viable strategy."

Another year, another wide disparity in the ideology of speakers invited to speak at commencements across the nation.

The administration has a history of trying to suppress the press. As Tim Carney writes, for Obama, "speech isn't free when it criticizes him."

The Department of Justice has a history of targeting whistleblowers as the DOJ's Inspector General released a report yesterday about how they targeted the man who leaked information about what the administration had done in Operation Fast and Furious.

Unions are starting to break with the Obama administration over Obamacare. If only they'd paid attention to the warnings conservatives were giving while the bill was being debated.

Another whisteblower on Benghazi is deciding to speak out. Turns out he didn't appreciate being made the scapegoat for Hillary Clinton.

The administration's chipping away at the First Amendment

Two cases make up a pattern that should not be ignored. A dangerous pattern. It now seems that the administration in its commendable zeal to plug national security leaks is willing to mislead judges in their applications for a warrant.

First we had the over-reach in obtaining the records for AP journalists in order to track down the leak that led AP to report on news ahead of the administration's planned press briefing to put out the very same information. There are many now who doubt whether the AP story did indeed put the American people at risk as the administration has claimed. But on that flimsy claim, the DOJ got a sweeping subpoena that allowed it to get two months worth the phone records from AP reporters. What is really chilling is that the administration can get such a subpoena without having to persuade a judge to grant a warrant.

That these phone records even could be obtained without the AP’s awareness underscores a key feature of how the law views information related to telephone and other networked communications that can be a dangerous vulnerability for news organizations and independent journalists. While many of us may think of telephone calls as broadly “private,” these and other common communications are inevitably conducted over third-party networks, generating two legally distinct types of data: the “metadata” about the call and the “content” of the call. While the latter is protected under the general “right to privacy” of the Fourth Amendment, the former is not. This so-called “metadata” is considered the property of the network owner, and can therefore be subpoenaed directly from and disclosed by the provider without violating any constitutional protections.

“Under federal law there’s a whole category of metadata called subscriber information that the police can get with a subpoena,” says Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes on issues relating to criminal law, privacy and free speech. That metadata can include the name, address, payment method (including credit card number, if applicable), length of service, numbers dialed and call durations related a given account. Apart from one decision to the contrary, a subpoena is also generally sufficient to obtain mobile phone location information, as long as law enforcement can demonstrate that it is “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” This detailed location information can act as a digital trace of a mobile phone owner’s movements. Pruitt’s letter indicates that some journalists’ mobile phone records were also seized by the DOJ, though whether they obtained cell-site data is unclear.

Reporters are now realizing that the government has this power to obtain their phone records without even letting the targets of the subpoena know that their records have been seized. What is truly disturbing is that in seeking the subpoena, the administration violated their own guidelines as AP's CEO Gary Pruitt said on CBS this weekend.

"...Under their own rules, they are required to narrow this request as narrowly as possible so as to not tread upon the First Amendment," he went on. "And yet they had a broad, sweeping collection, and they did it secretly. Their rules require them to come to us first but in this case they didn't, claiming an exception, saying that if they had it would have posed a substantial threat to their investigation. But they have not explained why it would and we can't understand why it would."

Pruitt went on to explain why the original story was important and why the administration didn't want it reported.

Pruitt said the AP acted "responsibly," holding the story for five days upon receiving guidance from the intelligence community that it posed a national security risk.

It was important for the American public to know about the CIA operation that thwarted an al Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb aboard a U.S.-bound airplane, he continued, because "the Department of Homeland security were telling the American public that there was no credible evidence of a terrorist plot related to the anniversary of the killing Of Osama bin Laden." That characterization was "misleading."

Now comes this story that the Washington Post reported yesterday about how the administration told a judge that it was investigating James Rosen of Fox News as a co-conspirator for violations of the 1917 Espionage Act in his reporting on the administration's determination that North Korea might respond to UN sanctions with another nuclear test.

The shock is that as part of its probe the Administration sought and obtained a warrant to search Mr. Rosen's personal email account. And it justified such a sweeping secret search by telling the judge that Mr. Rosen was part of the conspiracy merely because he acted like a journalist.

In a May 2010 affidavit in support of obtaining the Gmail search warrant, FBI agent Reginald Reyes declared that "there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation" of the Espionage Act of 1917 "as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator." The Reporter here is Mr. Rosen.

And what evidence is there to believe that Mr. Rosen is part of a spy ring? Well, declares Mr. Reyes, the reporter published a story in June 2009 saying that the U.S. knew that North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test. That U.S. knowledge was classified. But the feds almost never prosecute a journalist for disclosing classified information, not least because reporters can't be sure what's classified and what isn't.

This is a criminalization of news reporting. As Ryan Lizza writes,

Rosen was not charged with any crime, but it is unprecedented for the government, in an official court document, to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting the routine business of reporting on government secrets.

As Politico reports, it seems that the reason that the administration was willing to go so far as to name Rosen as a co-conspirator was so that they could obtain the records without Rosen knowing what they were doing.

It appears the prosecutors' statements about Rosen having potentially committed a crime were aimed at allowing them to proceed through use of a search warrant rather than a grand jury subpoena or other means. Under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, search warrants are only available to seize journalists' work products under certain circumstances, such as when the journalist himself or herself is suspected of committing certain crimes.

The man who leaked the information to Rosen was indicted in 2010 but the administration which named Rosen as a co-conspirator in their affidavit seeking the warrant now doesn't plan to indict him.

Now that the media are informed of the lengths that this administration will go to track down news, they are confronted with the reality that the very administration they've been supporting is willing to stretch and violate its own guidelines and even to mislead a judge when seeking a warrant in order to stop journalists from reporting stories that they don't want reported. As AP's Pruitt said,

"...The government has no business having control over all, monitoring all of this newsgathering information from the Associated Press," he continued. "And if they restrict that apparatus, you're right - the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that's not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment."

AP reports that they've already experienced sources within the government clamming up out of fear that the administration will be able to track them down through the sorts of subpoenas that were used against AP phone records.

These two examples of how far the administration is willing to go in tracking down leakers are truly chilling examples of their willingness to chip away at the First Amendment protections for a free press. Remember that there were much more damaging stories to our national security that were leaked during the Bush administration and they never went this far in trying to access information from journalists. And this attitude towards the media is not limited to searching out leaks on national security stories. As Philip Klein writes,

These investigations are shocking when taken alone, but as as Reason’s J.D. Tuccille notes, it’s important to consider these events in their broader context of the Obama administration’s long-running war against the free press. Last year, Bloomberg reported that Attorney General Eric Holder “has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.” The administration has also received a failing grade for its ignoring of Freedom of Information Act requests.

Taken together, all such actions have a toll. They mean that federal officials are less likely to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing and that journalists are less likely to obtain damning information that they can pass along to the public. The suggestion by the DOJ that Rosen broke the law, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean the end of investigative journalism in America.

During his first term, liberal journalists often remarked at how “scandal free” the administration was, despite Solyndra, Fast and Furious and other revelations. But maybe what really happened is that the administration’s concerted effort to suppress the reporting of news was actually quite successful.

Some reporters can't decide if the administration's application for a search warrant should be described as Orwellian or Kafkaesque. We're definitely not in "lightworker" territory now.

Journalists need to wake up. As Kirsten Powers describes the history of the administration's 'war on Fox News',

First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out—because they were not Fox News. Then they came for government whistleblowers, and they did not speak out—because they were not government whistleblowers. Then they came for the maker of a YouTube video, and—okay, we know how this story ends. But how did we get here?

Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to “delegitimize” a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.

It is truly ironic that the man the media overwhelmingly supported for the presidency now leads an administration willing to limit their ability to report news on this administration. And it is even more ironic that the story that is turning the media on the administration comes from their attack on Fox News.