General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublicans are going crazy over the fact that Holder signed off on the warrant for Rosen's emails
This is yet another scandal they say. They think this is yet more proof the adminstration thinks it's above the law. Drudge blares his bullshit headlines and all the cons start salivating like Pavlov's dog.
Well of course they won't mention the fact that a federal magistrate signed off on the search warrant and it was also approved by a federal judge. That same federal judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Totally legal and by the book.
They wanted the search warrant as part of an investigation into classified information given to Rosen by someone in the State Department. That person is facing prosecution, not Rosen.
Yet another phony "scandal" created out of thin air.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
defacto7
(13,485 posts)until they are gone. We might as well put our efforts into getting them gone and ignore these idiots. They busted the bottom of my scale a long time ago.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Republicans are going crazy over the fact that Holder signed off on the warrant for Rosen's emails"
...are lunatics, and anyone who props them up deserves to be burned by their stupid. They are hypocrites.
Fox and furious friends wanted DOJ to prosecute the New York Times
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/22/1211029/-Fox-and-furious-friends-wanted-DOJ-to-prosecute-the-New-York-Times
Fox Noise is a hack organization.
Let’s break some new, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.
Wait, what? Is that what a News reporter is supposed to do, force the administration’s hand to guide American foreign policy to the reporter’s whim? Separate and apart from the DOJ investigation, this email seems to indicate that James Rosen is not just a News reporter, but an activist intent on pushing his own agenda, with the stated goal of manipulating U.S. foreign policy
http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/doj-document-reveals-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-wanted-to-impact-u-s-foreign-policy/
For all we know Fox was going to try to spin us into a war.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I hadn't seen that before.
Fox News and their hacks trying to influence US foreign policy and hurt the administration? I can't say I'm surprised.
I'm happy the US attorney in this case vigorously pursued the leak and exposed Rosen as a hack.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Fox News and their hacks trying to influence US foreign policy and hurt the administration? I can't say I'm surprised.
I'm happy the US attorney in this case vigorously pursued the leak and exposed Rosen as a hack. "
...for irony. Remember when everyone wanted Murdoch investigated and for what:
CONFIRMED-Murdoch Corporate Cover-Up & Repeated Hacking ON US SOIL!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002185597
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5990&track=dem
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)and do a thorough investigation and prosecution of the Plame leak.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The DOJ could not have got the warrant without claiming that Rosen broke the law. Which he did not. Unless investigative journalism is now against the law. The DOJ only got the warrant by asserting a radical new interpretation of the 1917 Espionage Act. They asserted that Rosen committed conspiracy by working with the leaker to receive the leaked information. That interpretation would make it a serious felony for any news reporter to talk to sources in the government to try to get at information the government in trying to keep secret.
Do you know what I am saying?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The Rosen scandal is real. Holder should resign."
...and Fox Noise are hacks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894138
Holder was doing his job, and that's what he should do.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)And that is completely irrelevant.
They did not do anything to warrant the government seizing James Rosen's emails.
The DOJ went to a judge magistrate and claimed Rosen violated the Espionage Act of 1917.
His actions were the typical actions of an investigative journalist attempting to get secret info from a source in government.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"They are conservative propagandists, shitty reporters, and horrible people.
And that is completely irrelevant. "
...the fact that Fox Noise is a bullshit organization is completely relevant.
In fact, Holder needs to go futher and investigate Murdoch.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894291
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Don't you realize another President could use this power against news reporters who you like?"
...Fox would be there cheering on the prosecution.
Fox and furious friends wanted DOJ to prosecute the New York Times
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/22/1211029/-Fox-and-furious-friends-wanted-DOJ-to-prosecute-the-New-York-Times
Do you realize that the media are complicit, that Holder did everything by the book, and that media hypocrisy and opportunism (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857091) is at the heart of this bullshit outrage?
Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850304
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Your defense of DOJ's seizure of Rosen's emails strikes me as the type of thing Fox News would defend if a Republican President were doing it.
I put journalist in quotes because he works for Fox "News" and it's not actual news or journalism. It's right-wing propaganda. And while I despise what they have to say, the government should not be expanding the definition of "Espionage" to include people who report leaked secrets.
DOJ accused this reporter of Espionage, a national security risk, to get the magistrate to approve a search warrant.
This is radical and completely unprecedented - until Obama.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Exactly. And now it's your turn to cheer on government harassment of 'journalists'."
...keep insisting Fox Noise hacks are "journalists." And, no it's not "our turn" to do what Fox Noise did or does.
In fact, I strongly supported getting to the bottom of the Plame leak.
Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850304
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The DOJ only got the warrant by asserting a radical new interpretation of the 1917 Espionage Act. They asserted that Rosen committed conspiracy by working with the leaker to receive the leaked information. That interpretation would make it a serious felony for any news reporter to talk to sources in the government to try to get at information the government in trying to keep secret.
Republicans SHOULD be upset about this. So should DEMOCRATS. AMERICANS should be upset about this. It is time to stop responding like sheep to these bids for partisan, knee-jerk defense of the indefensible. This is how the corporatists in both parties win, over and over and over again. This is how they strip us of our rights: by rallying us into our Blue Team and our Red Team and exhorting us to defend the indefensible.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is not America anymore and this is for damned sure not the Democratic Party I grew up with.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)complaining about this administration allowing too many leaks of sensitive information. Now what! Holder is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. And most folks jump on the media propaganda wagon without really knowing or understanding the real issues. That media propaganda is what helped to sway people to support the lies of the Bush administration and take us into an unwarranted, illegal occupation and war with Iraq.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Read post 10 again. We are talking about the ability of the press, one of our remaining few defenses against tyranny, to do their JOBS.
Shame on you. Read post 10 again. This partisan apologism is not just rank; it is destructive to the foundations of our democratic system.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They didn't do that in this case. They went to a federal magistrate and the search warrant was also approved by a federal judge. This is how you do it according to the law.
Rosen received classified information from the source in the State Department. This emails are now considered evidence against the leaker who is being prosecuted and should be.
Rosen is not a target of prosecution.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as a co-conspirator. The DOJ knew the identity of the leaker. They wanted more information, but in order to get it, they accused Rosen to the judge of being a co-conspirator, based solely on his normal activities as an investigative journalist:
http://theweek.com/article/index/244447/why-the-justice-department-spied-on-a-fox-news-reporter
Though investigators had already targeted Kim as the likely source of the leak, they wanted Rosen's personal emails to help build their case. However, investigators had to first convince a judge to sign off on a warrant authorizing such a search, arguing that Rosen had potentially broken the law, too, "either as an aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html
"Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator'. That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a 'covert communications plan' and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . . However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so."
Many things nowadays are declared "legal" that shouldn't be. This is an especially chilling example.
It does not matter that the Justice Department has not charged Rosen with a crime. The point is that they implicated him in criminal wrongdoing in order to obtain a warrant that they would almost certainly not have been able to obtain had they not made the accusation.
Investigative journalists are one of our last defenses against the tyranny of government. First in Wikileaks, and now again in this case, the Obama DOJ is widening the interpretation of the law so that the mere act of soliciting and receiving information as an investigative journalist, can be considered grounds for surveillance or for accusation of a felony.
This case is rightfully chilling those involved in investigative journalism, and it should chill every single American.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They are well versed in the law.
That's why we have a judiciary and the DOJ went through the proper legal channels.
Scandal?
Not so much.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)are based on nothing more than HDS.
I mean, fire him for doing his job.
The RW hate Holder in part because of his defense of voting rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894538
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)They accused Rosen of violating the Espionage Act.
Either they knowingly lied, or they have developed a radical new interpretation of the Espionage Act of 1917.
Either way it's crap.
Rosen's actions were no different that what investigative reporters do all the time.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They accused the leaker of violating the Espionage Act and part of the evidence against the leaker was Rosen's emails which the magistrate and the judge felt there was enough probable cause to seize by the Justice Department. The emails did detail both of them conspiring to receive the classified information which is illegal under law, but Rosen is not facing prosecution under the Espionage Act or any other law. However, there's no law that says you can't seize evidence from a journalist.
As for the interpretation of the Espionage Act, that's why we have a judiciary. That's why these kinds of warrants are reviewed by federal magistrates and federal judges. They review search warrant and interpret the law (the Espionage Act in this case)...they can then approve or reject the search warrant based on their findings.
They approved and went even further by saying the Justice Department had no need to notify Rosen or Fox News because technically the emails belonged to Google on Google's servers.
Google received the notification.
Totally legal.
There's no there there.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)A reporter communicating with a source in government to receive leaked information is not conspiracy to commit espionage. Or at least it never has been until Obama made it so.
I do not want to live in a country where reporters might have their emails seized for conspiracy under the espionage act every time the talk to a source in government to receive leaked information.
This is a radical new interpretation of Espionage.
This is an activity that reporters engage in all the time.
If they can have their emails seized for talking to sources in government, this country is going to suck.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)conspiracy to commit espionage."
It is if they both know the information is classified and legally cannot be given to anyone without the clearance.
Again...Rosen is not facing prosecution under the Espionage Act or any other law. The leaker is.
You are woefully misinformed and lack an understanding of the law and the legal process involved in obtaining a search warrant.
There is no law that says you cannot seize evidence from a journalist...that evidence in this case is being used in court to prosecute Kim for leaking classified information.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)coordinate receipt of classified information, then that reporter was involved with a conspiracy to violate the Espionage act and can have their email records seized by the government?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That's why no journalist has ever been prosecuted for receiving classified information. It is a crime to leak the information and that's why the leaker is facing prosecution, not the journalist.
Naming someone as a co-conspirator does not mean you think they broke the law. It means you think there was a conspiracy between the journalist and Kim to illegally leak classified information and the evidence needs to be seized to prosecute the leaker. Which was done in this case.
The federal judge and the federal magistrate agreed that there was probable cause and they signed off on the search warrant.
You're way out of your depth here.
I'm done with you.
Have a nice weekend.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Yes it does.
Naming someone as a conspirator to commit espionage does mean you think they broke the law.
Have a nice holiday.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I didn't know that a keyboard warrior on the internet was more knowledgeable about the law than the DOJ and the federal judiciary.
Have a nice weekend too!
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The issues here are simple enough for any citizen to understand.
If I'm a keyboard warrior on the internet, what does that make you? You're sitting here having a debate with me LOL.
Rosen's actions are no different than what any investigative reporter does. He communicated in secret with a government employee to obtain classified information. If Rosen's emails can be seized for this, then half the White House Press corps are also eligible to have their emails seized.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I said the government accused him of violating the espionage act.
Which they did do to get the warrant. They named him as a target of investigation, to get the warrant and receive his emails.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"By the way I never said Rosen was 'facing prosecution'
I said the government accused him of violating the espionage act. Which they did do to get the warrant. They named him as a target of investigation, to get the warrant and receive his emails."
...what's your point? Is there another way of obtaining a warrant without someone being under suspicion?
In Memo To Employees, Ailes Blasts Obama Admin’s ‘Attempt To Intimidate Fox News’ http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022895188
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Glad you admit it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 05:52 PM - Edit history (2)
based solely on behaviors that investigative journalists engage in, by definition, every single day. They had no excuse whatsoever to target him in this way. They used the normal behavior of journalism and redefined it as something potentially criminal, in order to surveil a JOURNALIST.If you defend this, you defend the targeting and surveillance of ANY investigative journalist. But that, of course, is the point. This administration is surveilling the public, they are surveilling protesters, they are targeting whistleblowers, they are waging legal war against the whistleblower protections of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, and now they are redefining investigative journalism as a criminal or "potentially criminal/worthy of surveillance" activity. This is how authoritarian systems protect themselves. They put the chill into anyone who might speak or write openly about ongoing abuses.
Now, ProSense, as you always seek the last word, you go ahead and have at it with the predictable commercials, obfuscations, and non-sequiturs. Of course you will defend a new interpretation of the law to defend targeting and surveillance by our government of journalists engaged in routine activities. You shamefully defend *everything* this corporate and increasingly authoritarian administration does, no matter how malignantly destructive to the democratic foundations of our country it may be.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Mostly what you'll get here is, "If we do it, it's righteous. If RWer's do it, it's bad."
It's only fair.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)but I honestly never thought it would get this bad.
I always held a faith in the back of my mind that even corporatists must have some rudimentary respect for our fundamental civil protections and the foundations of a Democratic society.
It is chilling to discover what they will excuse and defend in the name of profit and power.
Rex
(65,616 posts)fabricated emails that made it look like there was a coverup...they had NOTHING! In this case, they have nothing still...now watch them go and spin this into something even more embarrassing for their party!
You have to realize, Republicans lack the shame gene.
libodem
(19,288 posts)The studies that show we think differently than they do, they show that they tend to be more reactive and repulsed by anything they might find disgusting. They are emotionally motivated by brain chemistry that blinds them to the big picture. They are told what to think, worship authority, and have attitudes of condemnation and contempt. You can't reason with FN terrorists. Plus they are impervious to shame because they have no consciences but the use shame to control and manipulate other humans who can and do regret their mistakes. Loathsome creatures. Shameless bastards. I hate them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's a political attack by the Obama administration, according to Republicans.
Pragdem
(233 posts)
kentuck
(111,051 posts)Politically.
Because it will unite both Fox News and NBC News and others.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We are constantly exhorted to defend the indefensible because of partisan, political motivations.
We decried the Republicans' disgusting defense of the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, torture, rendition, etc., etc., etc. And now Obama is continuing and expanding those policies, we are urged to circle the wagons, because of political considerations....
Step back, and you realize that this is how the corporate One Percent *ensure* the continuation of their agenda. They can always count on half of us to defend the indefensible.
We are losing our country. We are being impoverished, and our civil protections stripped from us. This should not be a difficult call. If we cede the freedom of our press from government targeting and surveillance based on behaviors that define the profession of journalism, we deserve the authoritarian state that follows.