UPDATED WaPo: DOJ Spied On Fox News Reporter

[DonViejo]

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: TPM

TOM KLUDT 8:17 AM EDT, MONDAY MAY 20, 2013

In its 2009 investigation of a leak related to North Korea, the Department of Justice spied extensively on Fox News Channel's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen, according to a report published in the Washington Post.

Using security badge access, the DOJ tracked Rosen's comings and goings from the State Department, according to WaPo. Moreover, the DOJ traced the timing of Rosen's phone calls with a State Department security adviser and obtained a search warrant to access his personal emails.

Read WaPo's entire report here.

###

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wapo-doj-spied-on-fox-news-reporter

---

UPDATE:

Fox News Reporter May Face Criminal Charges for Reporting on the CIA

PHILIP BUMP 9:33 AM ET

The government will use any and all information at its disposal to find journalist sources, as shown in The Washington Post's report this morning on a Department of Justice investigation into Fox News chief correspondent James Rosen, who may face criminal charges for reporting government secrets.

In June 2009, Rosen reported on CIA analysis suggesting that North Korea might respond to new UN sanctions with renewed nuclear tests. In order to determine how Rosen learned of the analysis, which had been issued by the CIA only a few hours prior, FBI investigators used every tool at their disposal: analyzing Rosen's security access card to determine when he entered and left the State Department building, studying his phone records, and subpoenaing his personal email.

Ultimately, agents determined the source of the leak was likely the State Department's Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Rosen and Kim established a high-tech version of the red-flag-in-a-planter system used by Bob Woodward during Watergate: when Kim wanted to meet, he would allegedly send an email to Rosen's Gmail account containing an asterisk. Rosen detailed the sorts of things he wanted to discuss.

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.”

According to the Post report, that's what Kim allegedly provided. And the way in which he did so appears to have been indiscreet. Their federally distributed security passes showed that Rosen and Kim left and returned to a building at the same time on the day of the leak. Kim's department phone records showed a number of calls between him and Rosen. When you work directly for Big Brother, you're likely to be caught.

Full article:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-may-face-criminal-charges-reporting-cia/65393/

[zerosumgame0005]

1. Good

[Swagman]

2. sensible considering Fox is a threat to democracy

[graegoyle]

3. They should be happy to show that they have nothing to hide.

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (3)

(This was meant ironically--yes, not sarcastically--in light if some of Fox's commentators' statements in support of Bush's domestic surveillance prerogatives. And I am aware that this may not be in equivalence, but that's part of the irony.)

[zerosumgame0005]

15. Exactly!

[premium]

18. Well, then the next time you're pulled over

and a cop asks to search your car, then you'll be ok with it, right? After all, you've got nothing to hide, same with your home, after all, you've got nothing to hide.

[yourout]

20. I thnk it was meant as scarcasm.

Though it is a bit vague.

[premium]

24. Jeeeeeeeeeez, I hope so,

although judging by some of the comments here, you just never know lately.

[mac56]

22. Correct and correct.

If indeed having my home or car searched is equivalent in importance to scrutiny of someone's use of State Department emails, phone calls, and visits.

It feels more and more like this is crisis du jour, and there's no "there" there.

[premium]

26. That's not the point,

the point is that spying on reporters, no matter what org. they belong to, is wrong and saying that if they've got noting to hide, then it's ok.
Tell me, how is that ok?

[zerosumgame0005]

29. are you really that obtuse?

[premium]

31. Are you really that ok with spying on reporters? nt.

[zerosumgame0005]

41. I am oK with making a joke

parodying the typical RW line I wrote. sadly the answer to my question to you seems like a big "YES I AM THAT DULL!"

[premium]

51. Next time,

try putting a sarcasm tag and then we'll know the difference.

[Jackpine Radical]

84. Poe's Law is operating all over this site today. (nt)

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[premium]

86. True, very true.

I've been guilty of it myself from time to time.

[Politicalboi]

58. There are NO reporters at Faux

Just entertainment jocks.

[premium]

62. That may be,

but in the eyes of the law, he's a reporter, he's also listed as the chief Washington Correspondent.

[treestar]

129. Well there's a good point

too true

[jberryhill]

126. It wasn't about spying on reporters

It was about attempting to determine who in their employ was leaking classified information.

[Blue_Tires]

134. Are you really calling this guy a reporter?

[wercal]

44. I'm confused as to how this is a 'crisis'

This is an ongoing case, and the story in the news today is based on court documents. This isn't an explosive uncovering of a secret...nobody was particularly trying to hide it.

That said, I think it is a legitimate exercise to ponder whether or not such surveillance of the media should be 'business as usual'. Keep in mind that you may not always trust those who hold the levers of power...think about the worst politician you know - do you want HIM to have such authority?

[W T F]

50. You do realize that Fox "News" supported this kind of activity during the Bush administration.

Karma!

[premium]

52. I don't care who supported it,

it's wrong, period.

[pmorlan1]

88. Thank you

I never thought I would live to see the day that Democrats would cheer about spying on the press and prosecuting them for the crime of journalism.

[Politicalboi]

56. After all the years Faux has been lying

They deserve to be spied on. They are part of a terrorist organization IMO. They shouldn't even be on the air for all the bullshit they spew.

[premium]

63. Tsk, Tsk.

I feel for this country with attitudes like yours.

[okaawhatever]

113. Fox has defended lawsuits where they were sued for reporting false info with the claim that they are

not broadcast news they are an entertainment channel. Sorry, they're one or the other.They can't be both. also, what doj did wasn't spying. The went to court and got a warrant. Have u read the emails? Read them and the warrant and tell me if you feel the same way.
If you disagree with what was done by the doj, that means you think having a reporter suck up to someone with classified info, spending time engaging them and befriending them, telling them how to get the classified info to the reporter, and then explicitly state your intention is to make money. To get a scoop. No whistle blowing. cold hard cash. Also, the doj only checked out access passes from that they narrowed from 95 suspects to one. They confirmed with phone logs who they passed the info to.Then went a got a warrant for email. Not spying exactly in my book.

[premium]

118. You don't think this is intended as a chilling effect?

When the govt. threatens to charge a reporter as a co-conspirator, one who did nothing illegal, you don't think it's intended as a warning to other reporters?
And how he got the info, that's been going on for decades.

Maybe I'm more cynical than you, but I have very good reasons for being cynical, I mean, after all, it's not like the govt. has lied to us or used dirty tricks to stifle dissent or suppress info.

[Kingofalldems]

124. How do you know he didn't commit a crime?

Are you a fan of Fox news?

[premium]

141. How do you know he did?

Because some FBI agent said he did?
Am I a fan of Fox news? And you need to know because.............................................?

[Kingofalldems]

143. You claimed he didn't commit a crime

so again, how do you know?

I got my answer on the Fox thing.

[premium]

144. Uh, no you didn't get an answer on the fox thing,

because I purposely didn't give one.

[Kingofalldems]

145. Fox news and guns

What a great combination.

[premium]

146. Whatever makes you feel good.

Granddaughter just arrived and she wants the computer, so I'll say adios.

[Iliyah]

4. Fake news is gonna called

VICTIM and the corporate will follow.

[Android3.14]

5. This is a serious problem

All the BS scandals of the last several weeks are nothing compared to this.
Freedom of the Press is essential, and Obama's Justice Department has overstepped the bounds, even if it is Fox.

[premium]

8. Exactly.

I could care less if it's Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, it doesn't matter, govt. has no business spying on reporters and I find it hard to believe that there are people on this thread supporting this just because it's a Fox news reporter.

[Cali_Democrat]

136. Justice Department officals went to a Federal magistrate and obtained a search warrant

There's no there there.

Everything was legal and by the book.

[COLGATE4]

17. What bounds are those?

[6000eliot]

27. Like we have a free press.

They've sat on their hands for the last 30 years as the government has slowly eroded our civil liberties. I don't feel sorry for them now. They don't serve my interests anyway.

[NoMoreWarNow]

68. that's true

the media is heavily controlled by the CIA anyway, this all seems like agency infighting or inter-agency fighting.

[humbled_opinion]

32. Yes serious indeed

A reporter caught in a spy scandal, but I digress, let's just be glad that the VP hasn't put CIA agents in danger by leaking their identities the press, I hope your outrage will hold for that....

[BlueToTheBone]

57. and he did it for ratings.

I guess sweeps week really is important.

[cosmicone]

53. Like freedom of speech, freedom of press is not absolute.

There is a responsibility and consequences for both.

I may have a right to say, "all bikers are wusses" in a biker bar too.

Secondly, since when is Fax News considered "PRESS?"

[olddad56]

80. are we talking about Freedom of the Press, or freedom to disseminate false information?

[cstanleytech]

94. Freedom of the press doesnt protect the press from the government

investigating to find out who leaked classified intel to a reporter, it never has and that means things like wiretaps can happen even on a newspaper as long a judge issued a warrant granting it.
What Freedom of the press does is it protects the press from the government telling it what they can or cannot print and it protects the press from the government ordering a shutdown on a newspaper as punishment for printing a story that the government didnt approve of.

[okaawhatever]

112. Not only that, there wasn't any wiretapping. They used badge logs and narrowed it down from 95

suspects to one. They then confirmed via phone logs that the fox reporter was the person who received the info.With that they went to court and got a warrant for the email exchanges between the two. I wouldn't even call that spying. Also, this info was out in Nov 2011. Why is it being reported now?

[Submariner]

98. News Corp has been reported as a Criminal Organization of Law Breakers

Fox so-called News is nothing but a bunch of traitors, racist birthers, sex perverts, scientologist, plagiarists, and bevy of female news readers that sugar daddies Murdoch and Ailes display as a bunch of call girls. Fox is adult cable fucking swill put on the air by a racist cracker from down-under and should be investigated for sedition.

[okaawhatever]

110. You do realize this information was available Nov 2011 and was only reported today. A little bit

suspicious? Also, read the email exchanges and the warrant. We must consider the whole of evidence. The fox reporter engaged this guy and buttered him up to get classified info. He told the guy ahead of time how to do it. He explained in his email that this was for a scoop and nothing else. It was profit driven with no regard for national security. That isn't reporting. Also, fox has routinely claimed in lawsuits for false reporting that they are an entertainment channel and not a news channel. It can't go both ways.

[Blue_Tires]

133. I'm still content to wait four or five days

Before flipping the outrage switch...

We will see what else comes out

[Cali_Democrat]

137. Justice Department officals went to a Federal magistrate and otained a search warrant

There's no there there.

Everything was legal and by the book.

[DesMoinesDem]

6. Obama's War on Journalism

[cosmicone]

54. War on journalism?

Trying to find national security leaks is the job of the administration - any administration.

Obama is not trying to tell reporters what to write and what not to write.

[sigmasix]

92. your war on truth

Isnt it interesting that we have a "News" media that only does the news when they are reporting on the Obama administration- but over the last 3 decades American news media has been methodically bought and radicalized by fox "news" and other right wing establishment extremists, in the interest of destroying American consensus about the nuetrality of the news media.

Now, all of a sudden we have a "news" media that needs protection from partisan operatives using the news media to destroy American consensus about the neutrality of our news media.
Fox showed the world what they think of honesty in reporting and interviewing when Rupert Murdoch's The Sun was busy erasing the voice mail of that murdered teenage girl. Is that the freedom of the press that you think we should be upset about during this investigation of a fox "news" reporter? Maybe we ought to allow fox "news" to just ring-up the terrorists and give them the adresses of the seal team six members- Would that be enough "freedumb" for fox "news" reporters? Or maybe we should allow right wing partisan press operatives unfettered access to the names of all our brave men and women in the CIA so that fox "news" has the freedumb to inform Bin Laden's followers about the home addresses and family members of those jack-booted thugs that risk thier lives daily excercising bravery in service to our country. Why do teabaggers think fox "news" should be able to steal state security secrets and place our heroes in harm's way? There's a difference between Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and Fox and friends; The Jungle was an expose' written by a reporter in the interest of informing the American people that thier meat supply was deeply tainted and in need of a completely new regulatory regime to achieve any real improvements. Mr Sinclair went under cover and lived and worked in the Chicago meat packing yards, risking his life and reputation to make a positive change in America that saved millions of lives. Fox "news" reporters wait for thier marching orders from Roger Ailes and never deviate from the scripted meme. By it's very definition this is not a free, healthy functioning press- it is a right wing propoganda-distribution node and the "reporters" they employ are partisan political talking point parrots, not respectable reporters following leads. If we had a functioning news media there would be no market for right wing ideology and hatred- hence the destruction of American news media by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk. There really isnt any honest news media left in America that deserves special treatment.
Teabaggers keep beating the scandal drum, but they forget that America has them figured out- hence the lack of traction for these so-called scandals.
LOL

[BobbyBoring]

131. Fauz can't ring up the terrorist to give them Seal Team 6 info.

Hillary already did that and got a bunch of them whacked

[premium]

7. Am I the only one here that thinks this is a bad thing?

Spying on reporters has a chilling effect no matter what org. they belong to, and yet, people think it's alright because it's a Fox news reporter.
Unfuckingbelievable.

[Kingofalldems]

125. Are you outraged a Jonathan Carl and the republican lies

designed to bring down a president?

[premium]

142. Of course I am

and I hope that they pay the price, but that has nothing to do with the thread, does it.

[starroute]

9. First they came for Fox News, and I said nothing ...

They they came for the Associated Press ...

[premium]

11. Well said,

and yet, there are people on this thread that are apparently ok with this just because it's Fox news.

#implied%20facepalm%20640x496

[emulatorloo]

59. Nobody 'came' for Fox News or the AP. They are after the leaker

who is a CIA agent, DOD official, Republican on the Intelligence Committee or some other govt official.

(As an aside, AP promotes the GOPer talking points about the same way Fox does. Check MediaMatters for examples)

[premium]

66. Really?

You might want to read this.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/20-3

[grantcart]

74. I read it and Greenwalds recitation of the facts backs post 59

1) The investigation was not focusing on the reporter but on a state department leaker

2) The 'investigation' involved tracing back movement by the reporter in the State Department

and

3) Getting a warrant for 2 days of emails and all emails to Kim.

Now here is where Greenwald famously goes off the tracks, as he almost always does.

He characterizes the leaks as being nothing more than normal chit chat:

Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist - something done every day in Washington

So you might want to read the links that Greenwald incorporates because they completely contradict his characterization. Here is what HIS linked source said was the offending reporting:

U.S. intelligence officials have warned President Obama and other senior American officials that North Korea intends to respond to the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution this week -- condemning the communist country for its recent nuclear and ballistic missile tests -- with another nuclear test, FOX News has learned.

What's more, Pyongyang's next nuclear detonation is but one of four planned actions the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea, that the regime of Kim Jong-Il intends to take -- but not announce -- once the Security Council resolution is officially passed, likely on Friday.

The other three actions include the reprocessing of all of the North's spent plutonium fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium; a major escalation in the North's uranium-enrichment program; and the launching of another Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile from the Yunsong military complex on the west coast of North Korea. The North last launched a Taepodong-2 on April 5; it conducted its second nuclear test in the last three years on Memorial Day.

The intelligence community only learned of North Korea's plans this week, prompting CIA to alert senior officials. Asked who would be briefed on this kind of data, a source told FOX News: "The top people: POTUS, DNI." "POTUS" is acronym for the president of the United States; "DNI" refers to the director of the Office of National Intelligence.


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/node/1419#ixzz2TqoXkI1B

So it was not, as Greenwald says, everyday non classified material, but highly sensitive material that also discloses that the source of the information came from a source within North Korea, which, obviously, is something that is highly sensitive and very likely to have terrible consequences for the source and future attempts by the US to get good information.

As usual Greenwald cherry picks his points.

[premium]

79. Doesn't change the fact that the DoJ

attempted to charge James Rosen with soliciting classified info when the law is quite clear.

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

How is this ok with you?

[Cali_Democrat]

139. The DOJ never attempted to charge Rosen

Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. The goal was to identify the leaker, not the person who received classified information.

The ignorance is astounding.

[emulatorloo]

108. "AP Leak ended informant's rare opportunity, why DOJ went after AP records"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022869034

Posted by okaawhatever

WASHINGTON — Disclosure of a highly classified intelligence operation in Yemen last year compromised an exceedingly rare and valuable espionage achievement: an informant who had earned the trust of hardened terrorists, according to U.S. officials

Clip

The informant, a British citizen born in Saudi Arabia, had been recruited by British intelligence to operate as a double agent within the group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, one of the most dangerous franchises of the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

His access led to the U.S. drone strike that killed a senior Al Qaeda leader, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed Quso, on May 6, 2012. U.S. officials say Quso helped direct the terrorist attack that killed 17 sailors aboard the U.S. guided-missile destroyer Cole in a Yemeni harbor in October 2000

The informant also convinced members of the Yemeni group that he wanted to blow up a U.S. passenger jet on the first anniversary of the U.S. attack that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. They outfitted him with the latest version of an underwear bomb designed to pass metal detectors and other airport safeguards, officials say.

The informant left Yemen and delivered the device to his handlers, and it ultimately went to the FBI's laboratory in Quantico, Va. Intelligence officials hoped to send him back to Yemen to help track more bomb makers and planners, but the leak made that impossible, and sent Al Qaeda scrambling to cover its tracks, officials said

Snip

British intelligence officials were furious at the disclosures, a British diplomat said. Saudi intelligence officials also were dismayed, U.S. officials said. And U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials were aghast.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-na-intel-leak-20130517,0,979584.story

This story is really worth the read because it gives all the details of the AP scandal, leak whatever u call it. It's LA Times so a little rw but it does give the details. I absolutely back their getting subpoenas for the phone logs, provided they don't explore any phone numbers not associated with the leak. AP reporters, just like abc w/benghazi emails got sloppy and others will have to pay

[premium]

109. I'll give this a read. Thanks. nt.

[simpify]

10. leaking classified information is a crime

What's so hard for you to understand?

[premium]

13. I can't believe that you condone spying on reporters,

how about when Daniel Ellsworth leaked the Pentagon Papers? Or when Woodward and Bernstein had info leaked to them about Nixon's crimes? Would you have been ok with the govt. spying on those reporters?

[Iliyah]

21. And what about leaks that harm

the United States of America huh? Same with AP, an CIA undercover operative and his/her family and gawd knows who else was exposed. Oh wait, ya'll be the first to condemn Pres O and his Adm if something does wrong and Americans are killed and you find out it could be been avoided.

What happened was within the US and rightfully so, but dealing with "Terrorist" inside and out is extremely important don't ya'think?

If the leaks are against an American citizen, congress, Pres O or his Adm. thats ok, and I think this DOJ knows the difference.

[premium]

28. This DoJ knows the difference.

I gotta admit, you are a humorous person.

[Iliyah]

33. I trust this government over

any GOPers any time especially with Rand Paul who is willing to drone to death a guy who walks out of a liquor store with a six pack and $50.00.

LOL

[premium]

36. So I'll put you down as spying on reporters is ok,

so long as they work for Fox news? That about right?

[wercal]

47. But you do understand

We may not always have a government you trust. So how about it...lets say Rand Paul somehow becomes president....are you still ok with the DOJ spying on reporters?

[Pragdem]

12. Quick Fix: Stop accepting phone calls and e-mails from government leakers. nt

[premium]

14. So we just trust the govt and every thing they tell us,

or don't tell us?

[gordianot]

16. When someone is stupid enough to use Government phones and email they deserve scrutiny.

[premium]

19. This is about spying on a reporter, not the State Dept. guy.

I just find it hard to believe that people think it's ok to spy on reporters just because that reporter happens to work for Fox.

[CJCRANE]

25. If a reporter acts like a spy

then they might expect to attract attention.

[premium]

30. So it's ok to spy on reporters if they act like a spy?

Woodward and Bernstein? Neal Sheehan? They acted like spies to get the story out, so in your opinion, it was ok that the govt. spied on them?

[CJCRANE]

35. So can a reporter or leaker never do any harm and always be immune from the law?

So, if someone leaks stuff to the press for revenge, for a grudge, for partisan reasons or to help a foreign enemy then it's okay?

This idea has reached the level where some see "leaker" = whistleblower = always good, always a hero.

[premium]

37. Ridiculous.

What was so secret about this info? Anyone with half a brain knew that NK would retaliate over sanctions.
So I'll put you in the catagory of it's ok to spy on reporters. That about right?

[Iliyah]

42. I don't think South Korea nor Japan

would appreciate "ridiculous".

[mac56]

43. Is it really that important to you to put people into categories?

Geez. I didn't know I had to choose up sides this early in the morning.

Put down your clipboard.

[Politicalboi]

61. Faux NEVER reports the truth

That alone should bring them down. All the other reporters should take heed. I'm not for spying on the press, but Faux is NOT press. Any organization that wins a lawsuit and is allowed to use bullshit as the truth should be put under a microscope.

[CJCRANE]

70. So who leaked the Benghazi emails and what was the motive?

Who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame and what was the motive?

Who decided to draw attention to the IRS information and what was the motive?

What if I leak classificed info to a foreign spy that I know will cause operational damage?
What if I leak the same info to a reporter who lets the whole world know, is that now suddenly okay just because it's a reporter?

A leaker can do it for benevolent or malevolent motives.

[premium]

73. Then you should be prosecuted,

but we're not talking about the leaker here, are we? We're talking about a reporter being spied on by the govt. and apparently people here think that's a good thing because it's Fox news.

Maybe you should read this.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/20-3

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

So now, if I'm reading this right, the DoJ is now trying to say that asking for classified info is a crime?
You think that will have a chilling effect on reporters?

[B2G]

38. Reporters cannot be prosecuted for reporting

on classified data.

Only the leaker can. It's the law.

[CJCRANE]

72. Fair enough. But reporters can ruin their careers if they report false information. nt

[B2G]

75. What was reported that is false? nt

[CJCRANE]

76. Just making a general point.

It's probably more true in theory than in practice with today's MSM.

[B2G]

78. Reporters can also ruin their careers by revealing their sources

But you already know that.

[Iliyah]

39. Like what Jon Karl did with ABC news

with the GOP altered leaked e-mail on Benghazi and I guess these people think thats ok? That full of BS and its effing fraud.

[CJCRANE]

71. Exactly. nt

[humbled_opinion]

34. I find it hard to believe

that you find it hard to believe that....

[John2]

65. I really don't care

what you say, because it is really in the eye of the individual on whom you think a reporter is. Most of these corporate institutions don't report news these days. FOX to me is a propaganda tool to me for one Political Party. I don't consider that serving the public interest or the American people. Do you agree or disagree, FOX reports news differently and with a bias political slant? Can you site any positive stories FOX has done on Democrats or Liberals in the last Decade and vice versa, any negative news FOX has done on the Republican Party or people on the Right that broke laws? FOX is nothing but a tool for Rupert Murdoch, do you agree or disagree?

[premium]

67. What I disagree with is the govt.

spying on ANY reporter, no matter who they work for, and in the eyes of the law, James Rosen is a reporter and he is listed as a Washington Correspondent, no matter what you or I think of him.

[choie]

128. more to the point, people think

it's okay to spy on reporters as long as its the Obama administration that does it...

[B2G]

23. They took his personal emails

Try harder.

[Pragdem]

40. And not one person at FOX or the AP has been arrested for their reporting.

Not one person at FOX or AP has been arrested for something completely unrelated in their e-mails or phone logs. This was about finding the leaker.

Not one person at FOX or AP has been ordered to not report on the information they obtained with the threat of prison or execution. The Freedom of Press sounds like it's very much intact.

Their e-mails have not been made public. Their phone records have not been made public. They both were obtained with due process. And we're hearing about it to have this discussion.

Excuse me for not being an anti-government paranoid type, but I just don't see the problem here. This is more of a slippery incline than a slippery slope.

[B2G]

46. How do you think the DOJ was able to get the search warrant?

By arguing that Rosen had broken the law.

What law did he break?

[pmorlan1]

89. OMG

You really think this is what should be done? You want the only news to be government approved news?

[hrmjustin]

45. They should charge him with the crime of No Personality.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

48. I hate Faux -

but I hate spying on reporters even more. The Obama Administration sure has a hard-on about reporters, whistleblowers, and pot clinics. To bad it wasn't as dogged about war criminals.

[MADem]

49. I don't mean to be rude to WAPO, but reviewing government records is NOT "spying."

Key card access records are government property, and people who use key cards to access government buildings do NOT have any implied right to privacy. Also, anyone who calls a government telephone knows full well that the "line is not secure and may be subject to monitoring."

And I'll bet you a donut that they only subpoena'd his emails AFTER they read some curious emails he exchanged with a government employee to a government email account (which is also subject to monitoring).

To my eye, Justice conducted an appropriate investigation into the leak of classified material. The leaker and the recipient both knew they were breaking the law and that consequences might accrue. Their "system" was as stupid as stupid gets--any good spy knows that the two tracfones, trashed when the game is over, system is much harder to trace. And meeting in or near State? That is just stupid!

[emulatorloo]

60. +1. There is a lot of smoke blowing and hyperbole here.

[freshwest]

119. Looks less like spying on FOX and more like spying on the CIA. People get killed from leaks.

The CIA was being investigated, not FOX. If the CIA was handing me classified information and I was arrested, the media wouldn't have said a thing about it, unless they could make some money off my downfall.

FOX viewers will say the big bad black man in the White House is trying to keep the public from getting the facts. Ironic, coming from the corporation that is a wing of the GOP and which has broadly edited clips and left out facts to smear people, fabricating news events and all the other worthy things they do under the title of the press.

[Politicalboi]

55. Faux is NOT news

So watching this asshole was like watching someone from Entertainment Tonight. It shouldn't count.

[bluedigger]

64. So?

The Freedom of the Press is their freedom to publish under the first amendment, not their freedom from scrutiny when suspected of criminal activity. They aren't above or outside the law.

[TroglodyteScholar]

69. ^^^This

You play with fire, you may get burned.

While freedom of the press is essential to our democracy, no one should be above scrutiny.

[B2G]

77. Again, what criminal activity did they undertake?

Reporting on classified information is not a crime.

If they were going after MSNBC in this exact same situation, heads would be exploding here.

[premium]

81. Thank you.

I'm flabbergasted that people here thinks this is ok because it's a Fox news reporter, but if the same exact thing happened to MSNBC, the uproar here would be loud and shrill.

[bluedigger]

82. My head would not explode.

Disclosing classified information is a crime. That's why it is classified. The press may not have to disclose their sources, but that does not prevent the government from attempting to find them through other means, or shield them from investigation, any more than if they committed fraud or armed robbery. If the government censored them or pressured them not to publish, that would be a violation of freedom of the press. As far as I know, this reporter continues to freely appear in the media.

[B2G]

83. Again, you are wrong

Disclosing classifed information by a reporter is not a crime.

And if you think this isn't sending a loud & clear message to the media in an attempt to pressure them not to publish these types of items, you would be dead wrong.

[cstanleytech]

95. I think blue meant that the person who disclosed the

classified intel to the reporter is the one that committed that crime and yes, its a crime to do so though oddly enough its perfectly legal to disclose if its to report it to a member of congress or the inspector generals office I believe.

[premium]

85. But it's not illegal for a reporter to publish classified info.,

but it seems that the DoJ attempted to twist the law and charge Mr. Rosen with the crime of soliciting classified info.

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

If the DoJ was allowed to get away with this, it would put a huge damper on reporters.
That, IMO, would be a huge travesty.

[pmorlan1]

91. Unwarranted Act by DOJ

Even Keith Olbermann, who is no friend of Fox, posted this on Twitter:

KeithOlbermann My experience dealing with @JamesRosenFNC was unpleasant and contentious. And I fully support him against this unwarranted act by DOJ
-13293 second ago via Twittelator

[treestar]

127. +1

A lot of posts here where that doesn't seem to be understood.

[KingFlorez]

87. Getting information from leakers will get you investigated

Even if a leaker is just talking a reporter, it's not legal. On top of that, real spies from other countries could pretend to be reporters or journalists and get classified information.

[Ash_F]

97. Why would they do that?

If someone was going to leak info to a reporter, it would be published and public knowledge anyway. You don't need a spy for that. If you are talking about soliciting info, well that is different.

And that is the main issue here. Whether the reporter was the one who approached to government worker and if that is considered illegal.

[KingFlorez]

132. It was simply a hypothetical about why leaks are not a small issue

If a reporter can get a hold of information, you never know who else the leaker might be willing to tell, spies included.

[brett_jv]

90. So, just because some random FBI AGENT ...

Has implied that he believes that the reporter did something illegal ... this get's immediately translated to 'reporter may face criminal charges'?

Seriously?

An FBI agent has no authority in the matter of whether or not charges will be filed. He may very well WANT to have it prosecuted, it might be his case, and he may think it'll 'look good' for him if the reporter is charged and tried.

But that absolutely doesn't mean that charges ARE going to be filed.

Sheesh ...

The way the shit is piling up lately to make Obama look bad, I just don't think it's a coincidence. It's really starting to look like the PTB want to bring Obama down. I wonder what he did to piss them off so much.

[pmorlan1]

93. Partisanship Blinds Us to Abuse of Power

I wish people would stop viewing everything through partisan glasses. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe things are piling up because this administration is going off the rails all on it's own and not because of some big Republican conspiracy to get the president? This isn't Red State blog, it's Democratic Underground. Most of the people posting here are registered Democrats. But, when Democrats do the wrong thing, Democrats of principle condemn their behavior. They don't make excuses for abuse of power just because it's a Democratic administration. We accused the Republicans (rightfully so) under Bush of defending torture and then we turn around and defend the indefensible under Obama. Do you really want to repeat what the Republicans did?

[brett_jv]

122. I get what you're saying, but you're missing my question ...

All I've seen is a report (in the Atlantic article) from one person described as an FBI AGENT, who's saying that what Rosen did is basically being 'assessed' for criminal activity.

What am I MISSING HERE? Has this guy been charged? Are actual PROSECUTORS threatening him? Has he had to lawyer up?

I'm feeling like I MUST be missing SOMEthing here, it's like everyone is talking about what some agent said as though it were some 'official' proclamation from DoJ.

It *appears* like this whole freakout is over this, in teh Atlantic article:

"[FBI agent Reginald] 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 email exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information."

And everyone is acting like dude's been arrested already and is facing a grand jury. I just DON'T GET IT?!? Somebody please clue me in?

EDIT ... okay, I see now that the quote from the FBI agent was part of the warrant request.

Now, unless he lied in this warrant (in which case that should be reviewed), then the person actually RESPONSIBLE ... was the judge who signed/issued the warrant. It's the JUDGES job to be the final arbiter of what is appropriate under the LAW, not the Agents. Agents will pretty much always try to pull as much stuff in to make their case as they can, that's why we HAVE such thing as WARRANTS that have to be signed off for by judges.

SO ... does this judge work for the DoJ? Why isn't anyone talking about what the judge did wrong?

And is there ANY evidence that the Obama administration was 'in the know' that this was going on, let alone that this was done as some kind of 'political' retribution against Faux News?

Also, does anyone else find it a little FISHY that this just HAPPENS to come out RIGHT at the time we're finding out about the GOP's doctoring of Benghazi emails? I know I sure as f*** DO?!?

[tavalon]

96. Wow, I'm conflicted

On the one hand, if this guy really is a reporter, it's a breach of the first amendment, very similar to the breach the DOJ has made with the AP and no one here has managed to make a credible excuse for that so I remain with the ACLU on the wrongness of our government going after reporters records.

OTOH, Faux "News" isn't really news so I don't know if this guy really is a reporter or just a propaganda shill and last time I checked the First Amendment didn't mention protection for propaganda shills.

[Abq_Sarah]

105. Last time I checked

The government doesn't get to decide who is a journalist. That's kind of the whole purpose of the first amendment... making sure we don't have a government controlled media.

If someone in the government leaks classified information that causes grave harm to our national security, by all means investigate and go after the leaker. Treating the reporter as a criminal is beyond the pale.

[tavalon]

106. Good point

And if we are going to call him a journalist (who has really bad taste in employers) then this is just as criminal as what happened to the AP.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

99. When you work directly for Big Brother, you're likely to be caught.

Like Bradley Manning?

[HeroInAHalfShell]

100. Did James Rosen break any laws?

[okaawhatever]

114. According to doj yes. One problem is there aren't good laws right now. Most go back to the Espionage

Act of 1917. Here's a good straight up article about it.

http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2013/05/kim-rosen-warrant/

[HeroInAHalfShell]

116. The article says...

“So far, the FBI’s investigation has revealed in excess of 95 individuals, in addition to Mr. Kim, who accessed the Intelligence Report [containing the information reported by Mr. Rosen] on the date of the June 2009 article and prior to its publication.

&


What makes this alarming is that “soliciting” and “encouraging” the disclosure of classified information are routine, daily activities in national security reporting. The use of pseudonyms and discreet forms of communication are also commonplace.

But for today’s FBI, these everyday reporting techniques are taken as evidence of criminal activity and grounds for search and seizure of confidential email.

“Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), at the very least, either as an insider, abettor and/or co-conspirator of Mr. Kim,” Mr. Reyes wrote.




So what Rosen did was commonplace but this FBI agent chose Rosen and decided that he had probable cause from this.

hmmmmm......

[Dawson Leery]

101. This was justified. Considering Murdoch's phone hacking scandal.

Did Fox or any other NewsCorp properties do anything to endanger national security?

[WhoWoodaKnew]

102. If a reporter is passing national security secrets to a foreign country, how should it be handled...

to determine which reporter is doing it?

[premium]

103. That's not what happened here.

But if they're passing secrets to a foreign country, that's a Fed. crime and legitimate investigative means should be used, but a reporter publishing classified info is not a criminal offense on the part of the reporter.

[B2G]

104. Wow...that was a brutal press conference today

Carney couldn't get out of there fast enough.

[premium]

107. They weren't cutting him any slack at all,

and good for them.

[Kingofalldems]

123. Fox news exists solely to elect republicans

and destroy Democrats. And witness the criminal activity in Great Britain. Absolute justification.

[Puzzledtraveller]

147. They did so well, getting Mitt Romney elected and all.

[Kingofalldems]

148. That's their purpose

luckily they failed last year.

[treestar]

130. They can still investigate to see who did the leak

Who in the government was doing it.

[alp227]

111. WaPo just now: Fox calls DOJ investigation of reporter “downright chilling”

Fox News reacted with outrage Monday to the revelation that the Justice Department tried to criminalize the newsgathering activities of reporter James Rosen in 2009 “for simply doing his job.”

“It is downright chilling,” Michael Clemente, executive vice president for news, said in a statement. “We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

The reaction from Fox came after the Post reported Monday on the Justice Department’s investigation into a possible leak of classified information about North Korea. A former State Department arms expert, Stephen J. Kim, was charged in 2010 with illegally disclosing national defense information to Rosen, Fox’s chief Washington correspondent.

Federal investigators seeking Rosen’s personal e-mail suggested in a 2010 search warrant that he was potentially criminally liable for soliciting the disclosure of classified information. The warrant was unsealed in 2011, but a Fox executive confirmed that the network was not aware of the allegations until Reading the Post’s report Monday.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fox-calls-doj-investigation-of-reporter-downright-chilling/2013/05/20/1236692e-c17f-11e2-bfdb-3886a561c1ff_story.html

[premium]

115. I've got a feeling that this isn't going to end well

for the DoJ. Just about every news org., is condemning this, Jay Carney got beat up pretty good during his briefing today, and to top it off, it appears that Rosen didn't do anything illegal.

No reporter, including Rosen, has ever been prosecuted for soliciting such information. But media lawyers and government transparency experts said that the Justice Department’s characterization of Rosen as a possible co-conspirator had crossed a line.

“Asking for information has never been deemed a crime,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “It’s a line that has not been crossed up until now.”

So, I've gotta ask, why now? Why this particular reporter? Is it because it's Fox news? Or is the govt. trying to send a message to the news orgs.?

Something to ponder.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

117. I've been wondering the exact same things...

[brett_jv]

121. Where is THIS ... reported OFFICIALLY?

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

"the Justice Department’s characterization of Rosen as a possible co-conspirator had crossed a line. "

How has 'the Justice Department' done this? All I've seen so far is a quote from one FBI agent that he thinks what Rosen did may be criminal. What am I missing here? Have charges been recently filed, or has an actual prosecutor come out and said something along these lines?

There's nothing wrong with Justice pursuing all legal avenues in a leak case involving confidential information. They don't appear to have done anything 'wrong', as long as they DON'T prosecute (or even threaten to prosecute) this Rosen dude.

Is this all coming to a head because of what one FBI agent said, or has something ELSE happened that suggests that charges may be filed against him?

EDIT ... okay, I see now that the quote from the FBI agent was part of the warrant request.

Now, unless he lied in this warrant (in which case that should be reviewed), then the person actually RESPONSIBLE ... was the judge who signed/issued the warrant. It's the JUDGES job to be the final arbiter of what is appropriate under the LAW, not the Agents. Agents will pretty much always try to pull as much stuff in to make their case as they can, that's why we HAVE such thing as WARRANTS that have to be signed off for by judges.

SO ... does this judge work for the DoJ? Why isn't anyone talking about what the judge did wrong?

And is there ANY evidence that the Obama administration was 'in the know' that this was going on, let alone that this was done as some kind of 'political' retribution against Faux News?

Also, does anyone else find it a little FISHY that this just HAPPENS to come out RIGHT at the time we're finding out about the GOP's doctoring of Benghazi emails? I know I sure as f*** DO?!?

[cstanleytech]

135. If it was all legally done though

then the press hasnt much room to squawk over it if any.
And if people think its the first reporter and or news organization that has been involved in an investigation or that freedom of the press means that that any crime involving a news organization or reporter cannot be investigated then they are deluding themselves.

[Cali_Democrat]

138. Why this reporter? Because he was the one that received classified information from Kim

You really need to read more about this story before posting. Clearly you are unclear on many of the details of the investigation into this leak.

[JDPriestly]

120. If the intelligence concerns events in the past, I see little problem with news media

obtaining it. If the intelligence concerns planned efforts or the future, then I think the press should respect the government's decision that it is secret.

That's overly simplistic, but basically what I think.

Our government classifies information we should have. The government should classify less, and the press should respect the legitimate classifications.

I suspect that the man working for intelligence will be fired. But I still suspect that Petraeus may have been the worst offender in this area. Didn't he have unofficial friends working closely with him in Afghanistan? What was the story on that?

[DeSwiss]

140. ''What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors''

- Always it comes down to filthy lucre.....




See? I told you they'd fuck everything up.....