Fox learned about the subpoena nearly three years ago (updated)

[ProSense]

Leak Inquiries Show How Wide A Net U.S. Cast

By ETHAN BRONNER, CHARLIE SAVAGE and SCOTT SHANE

<...>

One of the most striking recent revelations about the Obama administration’s pursuit of leakers was the disclosure that the Justice Department had obtained e-mails from the Google account of James Rosen of Fox News, in which he corresponded with a State Department analyst suspected of leaking classified information about North Korea. Investigators routinely search the e-mails of suspected leakers, but Congress has forbidden search warrants for journalists’ work product materials unless the reporter committed a crime.

A 2010 affidavit seeking the warrant — necessary, an F.B.I. agent wrote, because the analyst had deleted e-mails in his own accounts — said Mr. Rosen qualified for that exception because he violated the Espionage Act by seeking secrets to report.

<...>

It is not clear how often the government has obtained reporters’ communications records. In the North Korea case, the F.B.I. obtained call logs for five lines related to Mr. Rosen, and — as in the A.P. investigation — notified the news organization only afterward. That was nearly three years ago, a law enforcement official said. But the subpoena’s existence became public only this month, when unsealed court papers also showed the government had obtained the warrant for Mr. Rosen’s e-mails. F.B.I. agents also studied one official’s entrances and exits from the State Department, obtained his Yahoo e-mail information and even searched his hard drive for deleted files, documents unsealed this month showed.

On Saturday, a Fox News executive said that the notice had gone to News Corp., its parent company, on Aug. 27, 2010, but that Fox News was not told until Friday. The executive said they were still trying to sort out how the notice fell through the cracks.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/us/leaks-inquiries-show-how-wide-a-net-is-cast.html

No, the "most striking revelation" is the news that Fox learned about the subpoena three years ago. What's this: delayed-timing outrage?

Also, the NYT is wrong. The law cited does not prohibit search warrants for journalists in all cases. In fact, it specifically states that such searches can be conducted when classified materials are involved.

(a) Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—

(1)there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa

Here's the applicable US Code:

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356

WaPo: DOJ Spied On Fox News Reporter (a perfect example of media complicity - updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121

Updated to add:

News Corp. ex-counsel denies being alerted to probe of Fox reporter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022905278

Behind the Resignation of Murdoch's Top Lawyer: $656M in Defeats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2905564

[longship]

1. Another well resourced thread from ProSense.

R&

[CatWoman]

4. yes

I really enjoy them

[ProSense]

5. Thank you

both.

Wait, is that disappointment I hear from the defenders of Fox Noise, Hacks R Us?

[Buzz Clik]

76. +1

DU needs more of these and fewer threads based on emotional discharge.

[Major Hogwash]

2. You mean to say that Fox learned of something recently? Ha ha ha!! I doubt it.

Not only is the author of that NYT article incorrect, Congress does not enforce the laws on the books . . the Department of Justice does.

Ooops.

[JaneyVee]

3. Of course it's delayed-timing outrage. They were timing their outrage for ScandalMania™

[Historic NY]

6. I always laugh when stories use unnamed government sources...

in essence they learned nothing from the previous administration and the media hacks. Reporting is one thing but obtaining or offering enducements to obtain classified information and using it is another.

"And agents tracing the leak of a highly classified C.I.A. report on North Korea to a Fox News reporter pulled electronic archives showing which officials had gained access to the report and had contact with the reporter on the day of the leak.

The emerging details of these and other cases show just how wide a net the Obama administration has cast in its investigations into disclosures of government secrets, querying hundreds of officials across the federal government and even some of their foreign counterparts. "

Reporting isn't reporting, its getting sensationalized information and putting it out there...News Corp's M/o from the scandals that broke in England. There is no reason to think the entire organization didn't engage in the same tactics.

Were not talking whistle blowing here either. Seems some people are a bit nervous...makes one wonder.

[George Gently]

7. Shouldn't that be "FOX learned about the search warrant nearly three years ago"?

These cases are becoming conflated beyond recognition and I expect that's a good thing -- for the news business.

But not for the rest of us.

[George Gently]

8. Apology. CNN is reporting that FOX recently learned about the search warrant

but knew about the subpoena for the call records three years ago.

Notifying FOX about that subpoena three years ago would be SOP.

It is not SOP nor is it required to notify FOX or anybody else about a warrant to search an alleged criminal's property.

[ProSense]

9. No need to

"Apology. CNN is reporting that FOX recently learned about the search warrant"

...apologize because Fox lies. I mean, they lied about the subpoena. CNN's update is per a Fox official.

Even in correcting the lie the WSJ is trying to mislead. The NYT indicates the time frame is nearly three years, but the WSJ report states "more than two years."

In a couple of months it will be three years.

DOJ Notified News Corp. About Phone-Record Seizure

By DEVLIN BARRETT

The Justice Department notified the parent company of Fox News more than two years ago about its seizure of phone records belonging to one of its reporters, a Fox official said Saturday.

The parent company, News Corp NWSA +0.67%., didn't tell Fox about the notification, the Fox official said.

This new detail helps clear up a mystery at the heart of the continuing controversy over the government's actions. Over the past week, officials at Fox have denied they were notified of the phone-record subpoenas, while law-enforcement officials insisted they were. It appears the reason for the discrepancy was that the notice was sent to News Corp.

A News Corp. spokeswoman confirmed the company was notified in August 2010 and said it was looking into the matter.

- more -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323975004578505973554415696.html

[limpyhobbler]

10. CONFIRMED: Obama government is waging an unprecedented, dangerous war on press freedom.

POTUS is probably paranoid due to all the secret dirty wars and killing. So it's not surprising his government is frantically trying to control every scrap of information by harassing political opponents and reporters. Typical behavior of a paranoid leader.

What Mr. Rosen did was legal. The government lied when they claimed he conspired to commit espionage.

They said that just because they wanted to read his emails.

[ProSense]

11. CONFIRMED:

"CONFIRMED: Obama government is waging an unprecedented, dangerous war on press freedom."

Fox officials lied, and now reporters are having to put out tweets like this:

Ryan Lizza‏@RyanLizza

Earlier this week, when I broke the news that DOJ targeted 5 Fox phone #s, Fox told me the network wasn't aware:

http://t.co/Yykyvjdd0d

https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/338661702721748993

The story was old, Fox lied and then engaged in faux outrage.

[limpyhobbler]

12. Fox lies all the time. That doesn't mean the government should be snoop-reading Fox's emails.

Reporting government secrets on the "news" or on the fake new is not "espionage".

[ProSense]

13. LOL!

"Fox lies all the time."

CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356

"That doesn't mean the government should be snoop-reading Fox's emails."

Have you heard, the government is investigating a leak and it took the appropriate legal actions.

The facts about those actions are in the OP in case you missed them.

[limpyhobbler]

14. not what I heard. I heard the DOJ went to a magistrate and said Mr. Rosen might have conspired to

commit espionage. As if a reporter soliciting information from a government employee were somehow "espionage".

That's how they got the warrant.

That's inappropriate.

[ProSense]

15. Don't

"not what I heard. I heard the DOJ went to a magistrate and said Mr. Rosen might have conspired to commit espionage. As if a reporter soliciting information from a government employee were somehow 'espionage'. "

...believe everything you hear, and please don't add your spin to it and deem it fact.

Everyone knows Fox lies. The hacks were lying this week, and yet the complicit media decided Fox's version was accurate.

There is a good deal of information in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356), including links to the affidavit.

I'm sure you will dismiss the information, just as you're dismissing the the applicable laws posted in the OP.

[limpyhobbler]

16. Are you saying Mr. Rosen did something illegal?

[ProSense]

17. You know,

"Are you saying Mr. Rosen did something illegal?"

...I get that you're trying to shift focus from the point of the OP, which is that Fox lied, in order to talk in circles. So instead of responding to yet another red herring, I'll post the gist of my previous responses to similar obfuscation:

The insistence that there was no justification is a red-herring. You refuse to accept the facts or cannot explain why the courts issued the warrant, but continue to insist that the justification didn't exist. You cannot move to the next level and defend Rosen's actions because they clearly show that his motives were political, that he was fishing for classified information and that he intended to use it for a personal and political advantage.

Rosen instructed Kim to send him coded signals on his Google account, according to a quote from his e-mail in the affidavit: “One asterisk means to contact them, or that previously suggested plans for communication are to proceed as agreed; two asterisks means the opposite.”

He also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

Court documents show abundant evidence gathered from Kim’s office computer and phone records, but investigators said they needed to go a step further to build their case, seizing two days’ worth of Rosen’s personal e-mails — and all of his e-mail exchanges with Kim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121

Rosen wasn't having a casual conversation with Kim. He was seeking out classified information for personal and political gain. No one is trying to prosecute Rosen. That is the red herring that makes the criticism of a legal search warrant bogus. The target for prosecution is Kim. Leaking classified information is illegal, and if you get caught up in the leak of such information, you can expect to be held accountable.

<...>

In a 2010 affidavit in support of the search warrant, an FBI agent named Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in the case because he “asked, solicited and encouraged” Kim to give him information.

“After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act,” said a department official, referring to a federal law that governs under what circumstances information can be subpoenaed from the news media. “And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant.”

Nevertheless, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Holder “understands the concerns that have been raised by the media and has initiated a re-evaluation of existing department policies and procedures.” The official said the department must strike “the appropriate balance” between preventing leaks of classified information and “First Amendment rights,”adding that passage of a new media shield law “and appropriate updates to the department”s internal guidelines” will help achieve that.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-doj-confirms-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-emails

Reporters caught up in criminal investigations involving the leak of classified information can expect to be scrutinized, even in cases where the report is not fishing for classified information to for personal and political gain.

Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850304

A search warrant doesn't mean the subject of the warrant is guilty of a crime or is the person targeted in the criminal investigation.

Mr. Rosen was not charged with any crime. But the suggestion that he was a “co-conspirator” appalled many of his colleagues, some of whom rallied to his defense on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/us/politics/white-house-defends-tracking-fox-reporter.html

In fact, the affidavit states: "aider, abettor of co-conspirator"

The appropriate laws are cited in the OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022902690

[limpyhobbler]

18. Mr. Rosen commited no crime. You keep implying he did something illegal. nt

on edit: I don't really care if Fox lies. That's just a smoke screen you are using to distract away from Eric Holder's lies and spying on reporters. DOJ lied on the search warrant application. They claimed to be investigating Mr. Rosen for conspiracy to commit espionage.

[ProSense]

19. Fox lied. n/t

[George Gently]

20. Yes. Rosen is an alleged criminal.

He is alleged to have solicited classified information from Kim.

When Kim was indicted for leaking the classified info to Rosen, Kim implicated Rosen.

[limpyhobbler]

21. Soliciting classified information from government employees is not a crime.

Unless they are just now making it one. Which is what I am against, and why I keep talking about it.

If that were a crime then half the White House press corps would be guilty of it.

Because it is what they do all the time.

[ProSense]

22. What

"Soliciting classified information from government employees is not a crime.

Unless they are just now making it one. Which is what I am against, and why I keep talking about it.

If that were a crime then half the White House press corps would be guilty of it."

...utter nonsense. Do you actually believe what you type? Getting involved in the criminal leaking of classified information opens you up to scrutiny.

Claiming that the WH press corp is "guilty" of this is beyond absurd. It's silly apologia for Rosen's actions.

You need to stop pretending that this is the first time reporters have been subjected to subpoenas and warrants after being ensnared in a leak investigation. In fact, everyone should stop pretending. The same arguments were used during the Plame leak investigation.

''We regret that the special prosecutor has chosen to issue a subpoena that seeks to compel Judy Miller to reveal her confidential sources,'' Mr. Sulzberger said. ''Journalists should not have to face the prospect of imprisonment for doing nothing more than aggressively seeking to report on the government's actions. Such subpoenas make it less likely that sources will be willing to talk candidly with reporters and ultimately it is the public that suffers.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/us/times-reporter-is-subpoenaed-in-leak-case.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=746923

In July 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer. Miller did not write about Plame, but was reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official, later revealed to be I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson (the husband of Plame) published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. Plame's CIA identity was divulged publicly in a column by conservative political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.

On July 16, 2005, The Washington Post reported that Miller could face criminal contempt charges, which could have extended her jail time six months beyond the four months then anticipated.[25] The Post also suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was particularly interested in hearing Miller's version of her encounter with Libby. Filings by Fitzgerald reportedly alleged that Miller's defiance of the court constituted a crime. On September 29, 2005, after spending 85 days in jail, Miller was released following a telephone call with Libby. He had reconfirmed the release of confidentiality which he had given her a year earlier, and which she already knew about. Under oath, Miller was questioned by Fitzgerald before a federal grand jury the following day, September 30, 2005,[26] but was not relieved of contempt charges until after testifying again on October 12, 2005. For her second grand jury appearance, Miller produced a notebook from a previously undisclosed meeting with Libby on June 23, 2003, several weeks before Wilson's New York Times editorial was published. According to Miller's notes from that earlier meeting, Libby disclosed that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee involved in her husband's trip to Niger. Miller's notebook from her July 8, 2003, meeting with Libby contains the name "Valerie Flame [sic]".[27] This reference occurred six days before Novak published Plame's name and unmasked her as a CIA operative.

Miller's grand jury account was the basis for her last article in The Times. Miller testified as a witness on January 30, 2007, at the trial of Scooter Libby, which began in January 2007 and ended with Libby's conviction on four of five counts on March 6, 2007.[28] Libby's sentence was subsequently commuted by President George W. Bush.

The New York Times published Miller's first-person account, "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room", on October 16, 2005. After the First Amendment claim, she was widely derided for saying that she could not remember who gave her the name "Valerie Plame" but that she was sure it didn't come from Libby.[29] Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified, for example, that he was told Plame's name and CIA identity by Libby at lunch on July 7, 2003, one day before Libby's breakfast meeting with Miller.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Failure_to_report_source_controversy

Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022850304

[limpyhobbler]

23. I can't tell whether you are deliberately trying to mislead people, or just confused yourself.

I said:

Soliciting classified information from government employees is not a crime.

And you replied with:

Getting involved in the criminal leaking of classified information opens you up to scrutiny.

Go ahead and scrutinize. Just don't go to a judge and get a search warrant based on investigating that as a criminal activity. You keep implying that Mr. Rosen commited some crime.

Actually I think the Judith Miller case is a good example. Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to name her source. If Obama and Holder had been running things they would have falsely accused her of conspiracy to commit Espionage and used that false claim to scare a judge into issuing a warrant for her personal records. They would have got the information they wanted that way.

See the difference?

Nobody ever claimed that Ms. Miller was a conspirator in espionage, as the government did with Mr. Rosen. That's how they got a warrant to snoop his emails.

[ProSense]

24. Well, I can't tell if you're being obtuse. n/t

[George Gently]

25. You are free to offer your defense to the judge.

The "Everybody does it" defense.


"Everybody" doesn't get caught.

[limpyhobbler]

27. You probably think it is illegal for a reporter to ask a government employee for classified info.

But it's not illegal. Unless Obama/Holder just made it illegal by re-interpreting the Espionage Act of 1917. It kind of looked like that was what they were trying to do, judging by the wording in the application for a warrant. I figure they just wanted to read Mr. Rosen's emails. They just needed a reason that would get by the judge so they decided to investigate him for espionage because they know judges are very deferential on national security issues.

[George Gently]

26. Indeed it is a crime.

Whether or not you know it and whether or not you like it ---- soliciting classified information from government employees is a crime.

[limpyhobbler]

28. Oh really? Then why hasn't he been arrested?

Also see reply #27.

[George Gently]

29. With due regard to your "figuring" . . .

He was investigated for committing the crime of soliciting classified information.

The possibility exists that, after investigating, he is not guilty or there is not sufficient evidence.

Or maybe they're still investigating.

That's how it works in America.

[limpyhobbler]

30. There is no "crime of soliciting classified information". You just made that crime up. nt

[George Gently]

31. You might want to explain that to the judge who issued the warrant.

[woo me with science]

44. Yet the DOJ had to go judge shopping.

Of course the argument always comes down to this canard: Because the warrant was issued, it was justified.

Circular reasoning is not legal justification.

[George Gently]

92. "Judge shopping"? Quoting Breitbart? Drudge? How low ya gonna sink here?

Notice for E-Mail Warrants and the James Rosen Case

This morning, however, the Drudge Report has a top-left link to Breitbart’s coverage by Larry O’Connor suggesting that something nefarious is afoot. The Breitbart story says that the DOj went “judge shopping” and that “the effort by the Justice Department to obtain the controversial court order was arduous, contentious, and unsuccessful until finally a third judge acquiesced.” It concludes:

The revelation that two courts denied the secret subpoena before Lamberth finally agreed will damage the narrative that there was nothing extraordinary or out-of-bounds about Holder’s attempt to delve into the private communications of Rosen and his employer.

Putting aside the minor errors in this sentence — it was a warrant not a subpoena, for example — I think it’s important to realize that the magistrate judges were pretty clearly wrong in their interpretation of the law.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/28/notice-for-e-mail-warrants-and-the-james-rosen-case/

[davidpdx]

84. *In Jeff Goldblum voice* Yes, yes, he just pulled it clean out of his ass

[dumbcat]

75. Do you have a cite for that? US Code? I had a TS clearance for many years and learned

that it was a crime for me to disclose the information I had, but it was not a crime to solicit same, unless it was for a foreign government.

[George Gently]

77. It is a crime to solicit a crime.

If, as you say, it is a crime for you to disclose the information, it is a crime for ANYONE to solicit you to commit the crime.

[dumbcat]

79. US Code?

What you say is easy to say. Do you have a cite to US law?

Thanks.

[George Gently]

82. I'm suspicious of you already. LOL! First the Dictionary . . .

"The term solicitation is used in a variety of legal contexts. A person who asks someone to commit an illegal act has committed the criminal act of solicitation. . .

The crime of solicitation is completed if one person intentionally entices, advises, incites, orders, or otherwise encourages another to commit a crime."

solicitation n. the crime of encouraging or inducing another to commit a crime or join in the commission of a crime.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/solicitation

Then the LAW: 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment
provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of persons doing time in federal prisons for conspiring, or aiding and abetting, crimes they did not themselves commit.

[dumbcat]

85. Thank you for that cite. But

That section of the US Code does not pertain to anything to do with the case at hand. It pertains to espionage of National Defense information, and mostly code and crypto systems (the field in which I used to work.) The Rosen case pertains to the State Dept.

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;

"There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of persons doing time in federal prisons for conspiring, or aiding and abetting, crimes they did not themselves commit."

While prosecutions appear to be on the rise, leaks of classified information to the press have relatively infrequently been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it."[4] The legislative and executive branches of government, including US presidents, have frequently leaked classified information to journalists.[5][6][7][8] Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to pass a law that generally outlaws disclosing classified information. Most espionage law only criminalizes national defense information; only a jury can decide if a given document meets that criteria, and judges have repeatedly said that being "classified" does not necessarily make information become related to the "national defense".[9][10] Furthermore, by law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national security objectives.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

But thank you for taking the time to try.

[dumbcat]

86. And I lurked here a long time before registering at DU

and I am well aware of the suspicion and prejudice against low post count members. I am new to DU, not internet forums. I hope a well intentioned Democrat can survive the initial suspicion and scrutiny.

[woo me with science]

32. Shame on you for repeating this baseless garbage.

You have done this now repeatedly on this important issue. You cannot defend an argument in one thread, so you simply start a new one and repeat your nonsense where it has not been exposed.

I strongly recommend that all read through the below linked thread carefully, and especially the lengthy subthread (started in the second link), to see how absolutely vacant these claims by Prosense are, and how she is thoroughly unable to defend her argument when called to do so on legal grounds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356#post20

We are Democrats. The corporate-authoritarian propaganda is thick at DU, but I believe that the vast majority of us still cherish the fundamental freedoms and civil protections on which our society was built, and do not excuse assaults on them by either party. This initial thread by Prosense was an embarrassment to DU, from the very beginning when she brazenly argues in favor of targeting journalists based on the political leanings of their newspapers, to the end where she makes absurd claims about the law that, as shown in the links above, she is utterly unable to defend.

Don't allow this garbage to stand. It reflects poorly on all of us. Challenge the shameless partisan spin and insist on integrity and our party's defense of our fundamental values and civil protections.

[ProSense]

33. What the fuck are you talking about?

Your comments are clownish.

[ProSense]

34. It's a good thing

"Don't allow this garbage to stand. It reflects poorly on all of us."

Shame on you for repeating this baseless garbage.

You have done this now repeatedly on this important issue. You cannot defend an argument in one thread, so you simply start a new one and repeat your nonsense where it has not been exposed.

I strongly recommend that all read through the below linked thread carefully, and especially the lengthy subthread (started in the second link), to see how absolutely vacant these claims by Prosense are, and how she is thoroughly unable to defend her argument when called to do so on legal grounds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356#post20

We are Democrats. The corporate-authoritarian propaganda is thick at DU, but I believe that the vast majority of us still cherish the fundamental freedoms and civil protections on which our society was built, and do not excuse assaults on them by either party. This initial thread by Prosense was an embarrassment to DU, from the very beginning when she brazenly argues in favor of targeting journalists based on the political leanings of their newspapers, to the end where she makes absurd claims about the law that, as shown in the links above, she is utterly unable to defend.

Don't allow this garbage to stand. It reflects poorly on all of us. Challenge the shameless partisan spin and insist on integrity and our party's defense of our fundamental values and civil protections.

...that there are an equal number of clowns here on DU.

At Sun May 26, 2013, 08:05 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Shame on you for repeating this baseless garbage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2906279

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

No comments added by alerter

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun May 26, 2013, 08:09 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Argue the facts and keep personalities out of it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If the person alerting can't give a reason for the alert, then don't alert at all. I vote to allow. This time.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: First of all if you are going to alert make a comment as to why you are alerting. If you don't like the post challenge it but it is not hide worthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This isn't a call out since it is in response to pro sense and it otherwise only characterizes her post.

Thank you.

[George Gently]

35. You are wrong. Period.

There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of persons doing time in federal prisons for conspiring, or aiding and abetting, crimes they did not themselves commit.

Soliciting a crime is a crime.

[SlimJimmy]

38. Yes it is, and I expect Rosen to indicted any day now, any time now ... pretty soon ...

any second now. What do you think?

There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of persons doing time in federal prisons for conspiring, or aiding and abetting, crimes they did not themselves commit.

Soliciting a crime is a crime.

[George Gently]

40. See # 29.

Shocking how many Democrats want to carry water for the GOP.

[SlimJimmy]

41. Sure, they always accuse reporters of being co-conspitators in order to obtain search warrants

in these types of cases; or not.

As a matter of fact, they even tried to *hide* the warrant from the target in direct violation of DOJ rules. The only way they could get around that little problem was by *accusing* him of a crime in the affidavit. Even then, they had to *shop* for a judge in order to do it. That is shameful in my opinion. A new low for the DOJ.

And one last thing:

I'm proud of my defense of Rosen in this and the AP case. I'm very proud to carry water for the first amendment. You apparently, not so much.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html

[ProSense]

42. Well,

I'm proud of my defense of Rosen in this and the AP case. I'm very proud to carry water for the first amendment. You apparently, not so much.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html

...I read that entire section of the document, and it was a scenario (note the language: "her e-mail account&quot to argue about notification, and it still indicates "even if the notification came after a delay." The judges did not object to the warrant.

[SlimJimmy]

48. The judges *did* object to the part of the affidavit that asked to hide it from the news

organization and reporter, and for continued (never ending) surveillance of his e-mail and phone lines. Clearly, you *still* haven't read the affidavit in support of the warrant or the motions that surrounded it. It took them three tries to get it hidden. That's what we call "judge shopping", and is really unbelievable considering the high bar set for the DOJ in these cases.

That you continue to support the DOJ in its assault against the first amendment is astounding to me. Were you this supportive of the DOJ when classified information was released multiple times by the New York Times? I don't notice any threads by you that asked for the reporters to be charged? Clearly they were attempting to damage the Bush administration with the leaks. You know, political/personal motives. What about your support of the DOJ when they went after the reporters in the Pentagon Papers case? Did you ask for the heads of reporters in any of these cases?

Funny that, I don't think you did.

The AG has a lot to answer for. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it sooner rather than later.

[ProSense]

50. And

"The judges *did* object to the part of the affidavit that asked to hide it from the news organization and reporter "

...you're restating this point because? You need to reread my comment. No one is disputing that the judges disagreed with the timing of informing the subject. The judges did not disapprove of the warrant.

[George Gently]

45. LOL! Isn't the actual POINT that they don't "always accuse reporters of being co-conspirators . . .

. . . in order to obtain search warrants"?

Are you reading what you're linking to? What you're supporting?

Why in the world would the government be required to tell somebody about a search warrant in advance?

The notion is preposterous.

And how any American -- much less any Democrat --- can support and defend what the AP did approaches treason, as far as I'm concerned.

[SlimJimmy]

47. New flash for you. DOJ rules *require* it in the case of reporters and news organizations.

The only way around it is if the reporter or news organization is accused of a crime. The point of the article is that the DOJ went *shopping* for a judge in this case. As I said, a new low for them. The only other time this has happened in recent history was when the Nixon administration went after the reporters in the Pentagon Papers case. It was a direct assault on the first amendment then, and it's a direct assault on the first amendment now.

Why in the world would the government be required to tell somebody about a search warrant in advance?

The notion is preposterous.

Treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You really *are* clueless if you think my defense of the first amendment is treason. That's just laughable on its face.

[ProSense]

49. Oh

The only way around it is if the reporter or news organization is accused of a crime. The point of the article is that the DOJ went *shopping* for a judge in this case. As I said, a new low for them. The only other time this has happened in recent history was when the Nixon administration went after the reporters in the Pentagon Papers case. It was a direct assault on the first amendment then, and it's a direct assault on the first amendment now.

...really: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2905716

Trying to elevate what Fox Noise hack Rosen did to the level of the Pentagon Papers is absurd.

Also, the only point the article supports is that there was a disagreement about the timing of revealing the warrant to the subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2907689

[SlimJimmy]

51. Absolutely wrong. The judges refused the *no notice* TWICE. They had to go to a third judge to

get this done. Shameful, just shameful on their part. And it shows just how ludicrous and weak their affidavit was. That you don't get this is not surprising considering your lack of understanding in our last thread. By the way, why did you start another thread with the same dog and pony argument you tried in the last one? As I view it, you had a thread even before ours where you got handed your head on a plate. You do know that facts don't change from one thread to another, right?

I'm going to link to it so others can see what you're *trying* to do here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64359

[ProSense]

53. Hmmm?

I'm going to link to it so others can see what you're *trying* to do here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64359

Are you trying the clown tactic (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2906279)?

FAIL!

[SlimJimmy]

55. No, seriously. I wanted the rest of DU to be able to read and judge for themselves who offered

the better argument. If you think you did, then I don't see why you'd be concerned at all or even have a need to respond.

[ProSense]

56. .

[SlimJimmy]

57. Great response. Exactly what I expected, and you didn't disappoint.

[ProSense]

58. Psst!

Check your link.

[SlimJimmy]

62. Thanks. We *do* want them to read our exchange and not others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356

[George Gently]

52. You have been bamboozled ---- hook, line and sinker.

And you remain one confused poster.

It is the subpoena for the pen register for which the DOJ's rules require notification.

You're not defending the first amendment.

You are defending the news business ---- because you cannot admit that you've been used by the GOP to advance their agenda.

[SlimJimmy]

54. You are so mis-informed it is scary. *Any* delay in notification causes harm to the ideal

of a free press and the idea that a reporter may get information from sources without worrying about a DOJ that is looking over their shoulder. The time tested method is to go after the leakers, not the reporters. What changed all of a sudden? Why are you in support of the DOJ and not the first amendment?

They also wanted continuing and unrestricted surveillance of his e-mail and phones. Wow, just wow. If the DOJ can simply accuse a reporter of a crime, and then obtain a never ending search warrant for their records, who is safe?

I'd take you seriously, but aren't you the one that accused me of treason? Yep, that's what I thought.

I needed to add that "pen registers" only trap and record phone calls to and from targets. The warrant asked for *complete* phone records as well as electronic documents (e-mail).

[George Gently]

59. Put down those water buckets.

The notion that ANYBODY is entitled to advance notification of a search warrant (which is a damn lie, btw) is so absurd on its face that it's hard not to just keep laughing at you.

So I will:



"The time tested method is to go after the leaker . . ."

Psst!

They HAVE the leaker.

He implicated Rosen in a CRIME.

[SlimJimmy]

60. DOJ rules *require* it in the case of a news organization or reporter. What part of this don't you

understand? If what you say is true, then why did the DOJ go to three judges trying to get the warrant (not just the pen register) hidden? If there was no such rule, then why go to a judge for a ruling at all? Inquiring minds would like to know.

[George Gently]

61. DOJ Rules *require* no such thing. Why keep repeating the lie?

I have already explained to you that the DOJ Rules require notification for a subpoena for the pen register ---- NOT A SEARCH WARRANT.

A search warrant for a reporter suspected of committing a crime is NO DIFFERENT than a search warrant for ANYBODY suspected of a crime.

This nuttery reminds me of the how the Catholic priest rapists got away with it for so long.

The priests "inoculated" themselves by confessing in the Confessional.

Some of you (too many) have been bamboozled into thinking that a reporter can commit any crime if he "inoculates" himself by publishing.

If he wants some info in my house and breaks into my house to get it, he won't be prosecuted for publishing the info BUT HE WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.

[SlimJimmy]

63. Wrong, but keep saying it and it might become true.

I have already explained to you that the DOJ Rules require notification for a subpoena for the pen register ---- NOT A SEARCH WARRANT.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

I beg to differ and so did judge Facciola.

[George Gently]

64. You are confusing the law and the DOJ Rules.

The Fourth Amendment and due process REQUIRE notification AT SOME POINT.

Your claim is that REPORTERS are entitled to ADVANCE notification because they're somehow "special."

You know that there is evidence that Rosen committed the crime.

That's why the judge issued the search warrant in the first place and I expect that you have read the incriminating email.

Your relentless defense of the Republicans is inexplicable.

[SlimJimmy]

65. DOJ Rules require quite a bit in reference to news media. But you already knew that, right?

Before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media, or for telephone toll records of a member of the news media, Department attorneys should take all reasonable steps to attempt to obtain the information through alternative sources or means. 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(b). In addition, Department attorneys contemplating issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media must first attempt negotiations with the media aimed at accommodating the interests of the trial or grand jury with the interests of the media. 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(c). Negotiations with the affected media member must also precede any request to subpoena the telephone toll records of any member of the news media, so long as the responsible Assistant Attorney General determines that such negotiations would not pose a substantial threat to the investigation at issue.

Department attorneys seeking the Attorney General's authorization to issue a subpoena to a member of the news media, or for telephone toll records of a media member, must submit a written request summarizing the facts of the prosecution or investigation, explaining the essentiality of the information sought to the investigation or prosecution, describing attempts to obtain the voluntary cooperation of the news media through negotiation and explaining how the proposed subpoena will be fashioned as narrowly as possible to obtain the necessary information in a manner as minimally intrusive and burdensome as possible

[George Gently]

66. Now you are confusing a search warrant with a subpoena.

Your desperation is boundless.

And that's what you have allowed them to do to you.

Conflate. Confuse. Bamboozle.

A search warrant is reviewed by a judge who may or may not agree to issue the warrant.

A SEARCH WARRANT was issued for Rosen's emails.

A subpoena is rarely even seen by a judge.

[SlimJimmy]

69. No, it's you that are confused. A subpoena *was* issued for his phone records subsequent to the

approval of the search warrant. All applicable DOJ rules still apply.

News Corporation said on Sunday that it had no record of being notified by the Justice Department nearly three years ago of a subpoena for the telephone records of a reporter at its Fox News cable channel. The company’s chief legal counsel at the time also said that he had never seen material from the government related to the subpoena.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/business/media/news-corp-says-it-was-not-told-of-subpoena-for-reporters-phone-records.html

[George Gently]

70. Not to the search warrant. You really, really aren't getting this.

Maybe some of those nice folks over at freerepublic can help you out.

[SlimJimmy]

71. Wow, your ignorance of facts is stunning. Even in the face of evidence to the

contrary. Anyway, I can always tell when I've won an argument as the personal attacks start. What you don't quite understand, I suppose, is that they have no effect on me at all.

[George Gently]

72. So ya got nothin'? Shocker. And ya oughtta be ashamed of yourself, btw.

[SlimJimmy]

73. I already showed that a subpoena was issued for his phone records subsequent to the approval

of the search warrant. I don't know how else to make you understand. Feel free to look at my sig line for a detailed explanation.

[George Gently]

74. You don't comprehend that it makes no difference. You have so conflated

the subpoena with the SEARCH WARRANT that you are unable to untangle yourself.

As the GOP intends, btw.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you've just flown under the radar on this board.

The SEARCH WARRANT is for the CRIME and has ZERO to do with the Patriot Act, DOJ Rules, etc.

It's the kind of SEARCH WARRANT that is issued by judges all across the country thousands of time every day.

The government has ZERO obligation to notify ANYBODY about a SEARCH WARRANT for the future or in advance.

[SlimJimmy]

78. That you continue to evade the fact that a subpoena *was* issued for his phone records subsequent

to the approval of the search warrant speaks volumes. As I have documented, the DOJ rules certainly apply. It is quite clear that the DOJ also wanted to quash the notification requirements for the search of his e-mails by virtue of the fact that the DOJ went to three separate judges in order to accomplish it. What they wanted, but failed to receive was never-ending surveillance of his e-mails without notification. The district judge ruled (after two other judges had declined the request) that the government could temporarily suspend its notification process. I am dismayed that the judge ruled as he did, since it was tantamount to an assault on the first amendment. But that is an argument for another day.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you've just flown under the radar on this board.

That's a pretty bold statement for someone that's been here for just a few days. But I suppose it's what a person must do when their argument is so weak in the face of documented facts. Feel free to attack, it only makes my argument stronger.

[ProSense]

36. The OP has been updated.

Kick for clowns.

[woo me with science]

43. No, it hasn't.

Not with anything significant, anyway. You are using the tactic of *announcing* an update as though there were something significant in it, when there isn't. You insult your audience by assuming that they will not actually read what you have put here, or read the thread I linked.

This is merely another version of posting blue links to irrelevant articles or to articles that actually say the opposite of what you claim they say.

You continue to ignore the fact that the code you put here does not apply to Rosen for very specific reasons outlined by SlimJimmy in the previous thread, including that Rosen would have had to have knowledge that the classified information would be detrimental to the US or abet a foreign nation, or that he transferred the information to anyone not entitled to receive it. The affidavit addresses none of this, which is probably another reason why, as SlimJimmy pointed out above, the Justice Department had to go "judge shopping" in order to get the warrant approved:

which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,

Again, I encourage anyone reading this thread to read carefully this OP and then to read carefully the thread I linked to confirm that there is absolutely nothing in this trumpeted "update" that redeems a vacant argument.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356#post20

[ProSense]

46. See the note,

No, it hasn't.

Not with anything significant, anyway. You are using the tactic of *announcing* an update as though there were something significant in it, when there isn't. You insult your audience by assuming that they will not actually read what you have put here, or read the thread I linked

...the note that say "updated," it means just that, whether or not you fucking like the information.

"This is merely another version of posting blue links to irrelevant articles or to articles that actually say the opposite of what you claim they say."

Wow, "blue links." I'm impressed by your intelligence. Clownish.

[ProSense]

37. Hmmm...

More Murdoch, more FOX, more ONE PERCENT PROPAGANDA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1898360

Thanks Obama!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356

[ProSense]

39. Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021071272#post4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014382446#post15
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021958658#post4

...Obama!

[DevonRex]

67. Shame goes to those who defend Fox as journalism to begin with,

even more so in a situation in which they are clearly attempting to INFLUENCE affairs at the State Department by getting an employee there to reveal TSSCI material to them for that STATED PURPOSE. They have no journalistic excuse. You have no moral excuse. You certainly have no acceptable political excuse on THIS website. Perhaps you've mistaken it for one that is sympathetic to Republican influence on State Department affairs?

Perhaps you are unaware of the importance and delicacy of TSSCI material. The very knowledge of it reveals some portion of the intelligence-gathering method. I will explain no further except to say that it puts lives at risk in every instance in which knowledge becomes apparent to the other side.

This is actual espionage.

[uponit7771]

83. +1

[emulatorloo]

88. There are opportunists here who will champion FOX, repeat GOP talking points

adopt Freeper-style "0bamas-Secret-Plot-To-Destroy-America" conspiracy theories, and employ the full Karl Rove play book in order to take down Democrats.

The same loud handful generate thread after thread of angry logic free rants, half truth and innuendo. Some are no doubt "true believers." Some are no doubt paid operatives who pose as "progressives" to stir the pot, attack from the left, and generally work to make sure Republicans are elected. Nixon had his ratfuckers, so does Karl Rove.

[DevonRex]

89. Yep and as far as I'm concerned championing Fox is fucking blatantly rooting for

the other side. There is absolutely NO case to be made that Rosen was acting as a journalist. None. I don't give a rat's ass who signs his fucking paycheck. Even if it were the Times or WaPo, as soon as he said he wanted to influence State the game was over.

[emulatorloo]

91. Agreed, and very well put.

[Bobbie Jo]

90. ^^^ this ^^^

Perfect summation.

[ucrdem]

68. QFT

3 cheers and quote for truth:

Also, the NYT is wrong. The law cited does not prohibit search warrants for journalists in all cases. In fact, it specifically states that such searches can be conducted when classified materials are involved.

Quelle surprise, the NYT slants the news to defend a RW operative. Thanks a million ProSense for once again cutting through the crap.

[uponit7771]

80. THANK YOU VERY MUCH Prosense for your FACT BASED analysis. What detractors come back with is opinion

...and not any fact most of the time.

10 responses and no credible posted links to establish their positions.

You on the other hand post and quote PLENTY of facts that one can EASILY read in 2 - 3 minutes

Thank you again for your hard work

regards

[SlimJimmy]

87. Have we been reading the same thread? Show me where I have *not* documented what I've been

saying with the appropriate links to not only the federal code and DOJ rules, but news articles from credible sources that support every assertion I've made.. If you are not referring to my responses here, then my apologies.

10 responses and no credible posted links to establish their positions.

[hrmjustin]

81. ProSense thank you for keeping on top of this!