CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist

[ProSense]

CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist

Posted by Mark

The First Amendment holds a place of unique reverence in the hearts of Americans. Rather than focusing on a single issue, its authors packed it with critical constraints on the federal government that encompass rights pertaining to speech, association, religion, and the press. It is a mouthful of freedom that justifiably deserves special attention. However, like everything in the Constitution, it is not absolute and it requires interpretation to be understood and implemented.

<...>

In the government’s affidavit supporting their request for a search warrant, a passage in the document reveals that Rosen had stepped far outside the boundaries of journalism. His activities were those of a political operative with a specific agenda that was openly hostile to the official foreign policy of the United States. And Rosen pursued that agenda with an intent to obtain classified materials that he knew was impermissible for him to possess.



<...>

Rosen’s admission that he was seeking to “force the administration’s hand” in a direction that he believes is not “muddle-headded” is undeniable proof that he was acting as an operative, and not as a journalist. If Rosen thought that the government’s policy was wrong, he could certainly say so without retribution. If he thought that the government was engaged in wrongdoing, he could certainly pursue and disclose evidence of that. But to seduce a government employee to illegally transfer classified documents in order to alter government policy merely because he disagrees with it, and absent any corruption or controversy, is a purely political act.

The facts enumerated in the affidavit clearly reveal improper behavior and intent on Rosen’s part. And it is not difficult to see why the judge, a Reagan appointee, concluded that there was probable cause to grant the request to examine Rosen’s phone records.

- more -

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=9725

In Memo To Employees, Ailes Blasts Obama Admin’s ‘Attempt To Intimidate Fox News’ http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022895188

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. K&R

[matt819]

2. And, very possibly

He is soliciting treason.

His "recruitment letter" is very similar in substance to that letter found on the intelligence officer recently PNGed from Russia for a recruitment attempt of a Russian.

It may be a fine line, but it is a line nonetheless. It's one thing to accept a whistleblower's offering, and then make an intelligent evaluation of the information and decide, with guidance from editors and lawyers, to report (or not) the information offered by the whistleblower. It's another to actively solicit classified information for the purpose of, in effect, destabilizing the administration in power.

[trumad]

5. I see no difference in what a Russian spy would ask for..

Who knows...Asshole may be a spy.

[matt819]

21. Interesting Point

Of course, if we take that approach, we'd have to put on the RW crazy hat and run around crying "false flag, false flag." Is there a left wing Alex Jones?

[kelliekat44]

125. Proceed ...the news came out tonight that FOX was informed of this investigation THREE YEARS AGO. nt

[Cha]

3. thanks ProSense

[hrmjustin]

4. K&R!

[sheshe2]

6. Kick and Rec!

[kelliekat44]

7. How will the media spin this? Probably won't change anything since they hate the Obama admin,

as much as the Tea Party does. They just can't admit it.

[hrmjustin]

9. They won't even cover it.

[kelliekat44]

15. We need to make sure they do. Calling into two talk shows as I type. nt

[kentuck]

8. Very interesting but who are Alex and Leo??

"Rosen’s admission that he was seeking to “force the administration’s hand” in a direction that he believes is not “muddle-headded” is undeniable proof that he was acting as an operative, and not as a journalist."

Why is this "undeniable proof that he was acting as an operative"??

[randome]

12. A reporter -a good one- would only care about facts.

Not trying to force things in the right 'direction'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[limpyhobbler]

85. nonsense, all reporting is a political. Reporters should attempt to reveal government secrets.

In fact the Obama government leaks classified secrets on purpose to reporters all the time to make Obama look good.

If Rosen can have his emails seized for this, then half the White House Press Corps are also eligible to have their emails seized. Because this is what they all do, all the time. They communicate in secret his government employees to get classified information and publish it.

[brush]

90. Not when you blow the cover of an operative

[limpyhobbler]

91. Are you saying James Rosen "blew the cover of an operative"?

[brush]

94. Read up on it.

In his zeal for a scoop, he exposed an cover operation in North Korea, the most closed society. The toughest nut to crack for undercover work.

[woo me with science]

106. Did you just make that up? What "operative"?

You just made a very serious accusation that Rosen "blew the cover of an operative."

Please post your evidence for this claim, which I do not see in any of the ongoing coverage of this case.

It looks like you are trying to lay a smear here with no evidence whatsoever.

[limpyhobbler]

128. What he did was totally legal. nt

[kelliekat44]

13. It's undeniable proof that he was NOT acting as a "journalist." nt

[kentuck]

16. Who would he be working for?

Who should he be working for?

[ProSense]

17. This organization

Fox News Is a Terrible Advocate for Freedom of the Press
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/fox-news-terrible-advocate-freedom-press/65419/

[kentuck]

18. That is believable.

Is it provable?

[ProSense]

19. If

"That is believable."

...you believe it, why do you believe it?

"Is it provable?"


What: That Fox Noise is a hack organization not to be held up as a poster child for freedom of the press?

The article made a great case. Are you looking for court-of-law "provable"?

In Memo To Employees, Ailes Blasts Obama Admin’s ‘Attempt To Intimidate Fox News’ http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022895188

[kentuck]

36. I would like to know?

"the Foreign Country" ?

Which foreign country is he talking about? Israel?

[limpyhobbler]

87. Journalists don't need to be "neutral" or any such thing. It's OK for Fox "News" to hate Obama.

It's OK if Fox "News" hates Obama and tries to ruin his Presidency.

That's no excuse to use government power to seize their emails.

Period. No excuse.

Liberals should not defend this.

Don't give the government the power to seize emails of media groups who receive leaks.

The Obama government selectively leaks classified information all the time, when they think it's going to make them look good.

They selectively target and harass people over unauthorized leaks.

And it's working. Media are scared to report secret information that could make the government look bad.

[Kingofalldems]

10. K and R for the Cave people

[kelliekat44]

11. K&R nt

[randome]

14. Rosen is a special kind of stupid.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[woo me with science]

20. This is ridiculous,

and it reads as though it was written by a fifth grader for this website.

There is no evidence of criminal behavior here.

If you are seriously arguing that journalists should be accused of being co-conspirators in a felony and surveilled by their own government based on what you have just posted, you have illustrated the problem with our Dept. of Justice's behavior here better than any respondent to your post ever could.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894085

[ProSense]

22. You know

"This is ridiculous, and it reads as though it was written by a fifth grader for this website.

There is no evidence of criminal behavior here."

...attempting to insult people's intelligence in defense of a Fox Noise hack is extremely ironic.

It also doesn't help that the comment amounts to saying anything in attempt to be dismissive.

[woo me with science]

23. We are talking about government surveillance based on allegations of criminal conspiracy.

Your OP is shameful and embarrassing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894085

[ProSense]

24. Speaking of

"We are talking about government surveillance based on allegations of criminal conspiracy. Your post here is shameful and embarrassing."

..."shameful and embarrassing," what is the link you provided supposed to prove?

Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022895188

Defending Fox Noise is "shameful and embarrassing." Pretending that Fox hacks are "journalists" is "shameful and embarrassing."

[woo me with science]

25. Unreal.

Whoever is paying you for good PR might want to rethink that decision, because this is the most rank admission of support for government abuse of power based on political affiliation that I've ever seen on a site like this.

You make your argument based solely on the political leanings of the government target, in the complete absence of evidence of any criminal activity.

It's chilling. You do it, because you assume your audience is stupid and will lap up the partisan bait. But I think you will be surprised at how many of us still cherish the concepts of a free press and the rule of law, and find this sort of argument nothing short of appalling.

Even the administration isn't making this shameful argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894085

[ProSense]

26. Drivel

Warrants are always issued prior to determining guilt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022872403

[Whisp]

27. ha! you got that one just squirming and kicking

I think the shell is going to come off soon!
What will be the reveal?

[ProSense]

30. Well,

"What will be the reveal?"

...Stand with Paul (Krugman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2893967

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022896115

[woo me with science]

29. No, the government *used* accusations of criminal conspiracy in order to *obtain* the warrant,

based on observation of behaviors that are *not* criminal and that define the profession of investigative journalism: soliciting and receiving information from sources.

You are justifying a very serious abuse of government power: targeting and permitting surveillance of journalists based on...nothing.

[ProSense]

32. What

"No, the government used accusations of criminal conspiracy in order to *obtain* the warrant, based on observation of behaviors that are *not* criminal and that define the profession of investigative journalism: soliciting and receiving information from sources."

...the hell did you expect them to use: a conviction?

Search warrants and subpoeanas are issue every day based on reasonable suspicion.

I love how the focus is on this red herring. Read the affadavit.

Defend Rosen's actions.

[woo me with science]

33. There is no valid reasonable suspicion here.

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

The government cited Rosen's solicitation of information from and communication with sources, which are normal, even defining, activities for any investigative journalist. There is no evidence, nor even any suggestion, of criminal activity here, yet the government sought to surveil Rosen based on written accustions that he was somehow a co-conspirator in criminal activity.

That is what is so chilling here, and that is what the government's own affadavit admits. And that is why the administration is backtracking now and making public statements about "press shield" laws.

Based on their argument, ANY investigative journalist would have been fair game for government surveillance without any chance to dispute the warrant. It was unconscionable.

[ProSense]

35. Maybe,

"There is no valid reasonable suspicion here. The government cited Rosen's solicitation of information from and communication with sources, which are normal, even defining, activities for any investigative journalist. There is no evidence, nor even any suggestion, of criminal activity here, yet the government sought to surveil Rosen based on written accustions that he was somehow a co-conspiritor in criminal activity."

...you should volunteer to be Rosen's lawyer.

[kentuck]

38. "..expose muddle-headed policy.."??

Would that not be a good thing? The people or the readers will eventually decide what is "muddle-headed" or not, not the DOJ... Just my opinion.

[ProSense]

40. Are you

"..expose muddle-headed policy.."??

Would that not be a good thing? The people or the readers will eventually decide what is "muddle-headed" or not, not the DOJ... Just my opinion.

...suggesting that this is a "good" criteria for leaking classified information?

Should it have been OK to leak Plame's identity based on not liking her or some other subjective criteria?

[kentuck]

69. I would rather take my chances with a muddled-headed press....

...than with an over-secretive government.

However, if someone in the press does expose classified information that is harmful to our country or to individuals, then they should pay a price. I'm just not sure that the penalty should be to trust the government to do what's right?

[ProSense]

72. Sometimes

"I would rather take my chances with a muddled-headed press....than with an over-secretive government."

...the "muddled-headed press" is complicit with the "over-secretive government"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2900348

Hundreds of thousands get killed when that happens.

[kentuck]

76. So if one reporter had exposed it?

Would he have been guilty of exposing confidential information and open for vilification? Or would he have been doing the right thing?

[ProSense]

78. Wait

"So if one reporter had exposed it? Would he have been guilty of exposing confidential information and open for vilification? Or would he have been doing the right thing?"

...you're trying to pretend that all cases are equal? One can support exposing government wrongdoing and opposed exposing information that jeopardizes people's lives and other sensitive classified information. The former is usually to protect our functioning democratic government and the latter is typically designed to subvert it.

Again, after all the cries about how Fox Noise is a propaganda outlet, some demanding that the FCC pull its license, it's fascinating that anyone is defending one of its hacks, who had a clear purpose to disrupt for personal and political gain.

[SlimJimmy]

116. The statute involved here does cover that. However, the information must be

defense related and be of harm to the United States. In the Rosen case, the government has failed to show what harm was done, if any. Nothing in the affidavit for the search warrant addresses it. As to the penalty, the US Code is clear:

The provision imposes a fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of a first offense or attempted violation. Repeat offenses or attempts can incur a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

[Luminous Animal]

122. It wasn't okay to look but it was okay to report.

[woo me with science]

39. Again, we are talking about government surveillance based on accusations of criminal conspiracy,

and the evidence of criminal conspiracy and justification for such surveillance offered by this administration were behaviors that define the daily activities of virtually every investigative journalist in America.

That is the very definition of undermining a free press in America and preventing its ability to carry out its most fundamental role: serving as a check to abuse of government power.

Your defense of this is extremely disturbing, but not unexpected. What did take me by surprise was your added brazen justification of exercising this sort of abuse of power based solely on the political leanings of the paper involved.

This is without a doubt the most embarrassing and shameful link and OP you have ever posted.

_________________________________________
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894085

[ProSense]

41. Actually,

"Again, we are talking about government surveillance based on accusations of criminal conspiracy, and the evidence of criminal conspiracy and justification for such surveillance offered by this administration were behaviors that define the daily activities of virtually every investigative journalist in America. "

...we're talking about legal subpoenas and warrants based on reasonable suspicion in a criminal investigation into the leak of classified information.

Do you have evidence that soliciting classified information for political purposes "define(s) the daily activities of virtually every investigative journalist in America"?

[woo me with science]

44. There is nothing criminal about a journalist's soliciting information. Or receiving it.

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

It is what they do.

The government made the accusation that Rosen was a criminal co-conspirator *in order* to obtain the warrant, based on no evidence or suspicion of criminal activity whatsoever, but by citing activities normally pursued by journalists.

That is a chilling expansion of the historic and intended meaning of the Espionage Act, and that is why you see broad-based outrage over this behavior on the part of the press, and corrective statements by the administration.

[ProSense]

47. So

"There is nothing criminal about a journalist's soliciting information. Or receiving it.

It is what they do."

...there is no such crime as leaking classified information and a "journalist's" job is "soliciting" such information?

"The government made the accusation that Rosen was a criminal co-conspiritor *in order* to obtain the warrant, based on no evidence or suspicion of criminal activity whatsoever, but by citing activities normally pursued by journalists. "

Should I put the affadavit in front of you again? (See the OP)

You can repeat that nonsense all day, doesn't change the facts.

[woo me with science]

51. What facts? You haven't offered anything at all.

You have posted nothing from the affidavit or from anywhere else that suggests any criminal activity at all, much less a violation of the Espionage Act.

[ProSense]

52. You want

"What facts? You haven't offered anything at all."

...facts? Here:

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Sec. 798 - Disclosure of classified information
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov


§798. Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—



Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

(d)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—

(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap37-sec798.htm

I would contend that this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356) is "willfully," "predjudicial" and "unauthorized."

Again, search warrants and Subpoenas are issued not based on reasonable suspicion.

[SlimJimmy]

53. Exactly what part of the US Code you cited would apply in this case? The statute you are using

*specifically* applies only to :

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;

Nothing that the government employee/agent released to Rosen was contained in the above three sections. He released information pertaining to the North Korean response to sanctions. In other words, you have cited the wrong statute.

[ProSense]

55. "He released information pertaining to the North Korean response to sanctions."

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

[SlimJimmy]

59. What was provided to him had nothing to do with the statute you cited. That statute concerns the

release of classified information in reference to cryptographic codes, ciphers, and the maintenance and repair of such communications equipment. What Rosen was asking for was the following:

"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.”

That information is not related in the least to what is defined in the statute. I've excerpted the relevant part for your convenience:

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;

With that said, what other statute in the US Code do you think he can be charged under?

[woo me with science]

54. Absurd.

There is no content here. You have copied a statute and then linked to your absurd, vacant OP. Your only specific assertion here is that because the warrant was granted, it was justifiable.

That is the same indefensible logic by which the administration retroactively and without evidence categorizes every male of a certain age slaughtered in its drone attacks as having been "an enemy combatant."

[ProSense]

58. Dismissive nonsense.

"There is no content here. You have copied a statute and then linked to your absurd, vacant OP. Your only specific assertion here is that because the warrant was granted, it was justifiable. "

You can't face the facts. Speaking of absurd, you're now arguing opinion. The warrant was legal, and the justification to issue it was accepted by the courts. You can claim it wasn't justified, but now you're arguing that the courts did something wrong.

That's the problem with trying to focus on the red-herring claim that there was no justification. You cannot explain why the courts issued the warrant except 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.

[SlimJimmy]

60. Show me where this is illegal under the appropriate US Code. Obtaining classified information

is not illegal except under very limited circumstances. One of those is that the information must be in reference to the the defense department and its capabilities. Secondly, the release must be shown to cause harm to the United States, and that the reporter knew it would cause harm at the time of the release. What you have outlined may be unethical or even unprofessional, but it is certainly not illegal under the US Code. I would say a fair reading would show that he was developing a source. In other words, doing what reporters do every day.

Search warrants are issued quite often using less than stellar affidavits. My reading of the affidavit leaves me with that sense. (have you read the entire affidavit yet?) They were pushing the envelope of credibility by tying his political/personal request to espionage. The fact that they found a judge to sign it has no real value when it comes to prosecution. If by some chance they ever prosecute Rosen for this, I'll be shocked. It's been an extremely weak case from the start.

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.

[ProSense]

61. Wait

"Show me where this is illegal under the appropriate US Code. Obtaining classified information is not illegal except under very limited circumstances."

...you're saying it's illegal under "limited circumstance," but you want proof of that? What you're attempting to do is dismiss the "circumstance."

"Search warrants are issued quite often using less than stellar affidavits. My reading of the affidavit leaves me with that sense. (have you read the entire affidavit yet?) They were pushing the envelope of credibility by tying his political/personal request to espionage. The fact that they found a judge to sign it has no real value when it comes to prosecution. If by some chance they ever prosecute Rosen for this, I'll be shocked. It's been an extremely weak case from the start. "

He 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

[SlimJimmy]

64. Did you read anything I wrote?

I said you cited the wrong US Code and you haven't even addressed it. I outlined the limited circumstances in my reply, but apparently you missed that as well. Please, please ... actually read what I write and respond to it. That's how a message board works. It's getting frustrating to answer you just to have you come back with the same stuff each time.

As to prosecuting Rosen ... oh *yes* they were trying to prosecute him. He is named as a co-conspirator in the affidavit. That means the government thinks he committed a CRIME. The fact that they *haven't* prosecuted him shows just how weak their case is. And trust me, it's *very* weak.

So, to summarize. Please answer my question from the previous reply. What US Code applies here? The one you cited is wrong as it only applies to cryptographic and cipher equipment.

Please re-read my previous reply to see why his political/personal motivations are *not* a crime.

Please read the *actual* affidavit in support of the search warrant. It is very enlightening and will help you with the US Code question.

He 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.

[ProSense]

67. Well

"Please re-read my previous reply to see why his political/personal motivations are *not* a crime."

...his "political/personal motivations are *not* a crime," but he becomes a target for scrutiny when he becomes involved in the criminal leaking of classified information. Kim is charged with a crime.

I son't buy into the notion that anyone is shocked that reporters become targets in such instances.

Fox News Is a Terrible Advocate for Freedom of the Press

And, in fact, Fox News has, since 2008, had someone on the payroll who understands the perils for journalists once prosecutors begin hunting for leaks: Judith Miller, the ex-New York Times correspondent who went to prison in 2005 rather than give up her sources during the investigation into the leak of the classified identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. She went on air to address the White House leaks matter last summer, and while, not exactly dissenting from the consensus Fox News view that people should go to jail over the Sanger book, she wasn't nearly as zealous in her support of a prosecution.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/fox-news-terrible-advocate-freedom-press/65419/

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

"As to prosecuting Rosen ... oh *yes* they were trying to prosecute him. He is named as a co-conspirator in the affidavit...Please read the *actual* affidavit in support of the search warrant. It is very enlightening and will help you with the US Code question."

I suggest that you read it. They were not "trying to prosecute him."

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"

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

[SlimJimmy]

75. You have really missed the mark here. And your cut and paste reply tells me all I need to know.

Actually they *were* trying to prosecute him. By virtue of his being named in the affidavit. The fact that he was not prosecuted just shows how weak their case was from the start.

Now to address the rest of your reply:

You *do* realize that you quoted the section the US Code concerning the government employee/agent, right? The section you excerpted has *nothing* to do with Rosen. In order for Rosen to be a co-conspirator, he must have known two things. One, that the information was classified defense material, and two, that the release of the information would harm the United States. If you had actually read the affidavit in support of the search warrant, (which is clear that you haven't) you would know that the agent that wrote it only addressed the classified defense material in the most passing way, and that he didn't address the "harm to the United States" at all. Funny that. I'm actually amazed that any competent magistrate would have signed that warrant. But that's a discussion for another day.

However, you do get points for *finally* getting the US Code right. At least you are headed in the right direction. Now, look through that code and show me the part where it says it is illegal for a reporter (or anyone for that matter) to be guilty by virtue of their personal or political motivation. I've read through the whole title and can't seem to find it.

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.

I suggest that you read it. They were not "trying to prosecute him."

[ProSense]

77. An

"Actually they *were* trying to prosecute him. By virtue of his being named in the affidavit. The fact that he was not prosecuted just shows how weak their case was from the start. "

...affidavit for a search warrant is not an attempt to prosecute.

[woo me with science]

79. So the government misrepresented their intent to the court

They smeared Rosen by alleging to the court that he was a criminal felony conspirator in order to obtain a warrant to surveil him, knowing full well that there was no basis for the allegation and that they did not really intend to go after him.

That's breathtaking. That's just as breathtaking as your brazen call above to target journalists based on the political leanings of the papers they work for.

This is just an appalling thread and performance, Prosense.

[ProSense]

80. Nonsense, and

"This is just an appalling thread and performance, Prosense. "

...spare me the self-righteous indignation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2897946

[SlimJimmy]

84. It is the necessary and usual step when accusing someone of a crime. The federal government

may use a search warrant (upon probable cause) to obtain additional evidence of a crime. They may not, however, use the *possible* prosecution of anyone as the sole basis for a warrant. Nor may they use it solely as a means to strengthen their case against another individual. They must believe that a crime has been committed by *that* person and be of a view to prosecute. Otherwise, they would be able to obtain search warrants at any time and against anyone they chose. Do you understand that? Under your scenario, they could *say* that *you* are a co-conspirator with anyone of which you have contact and search your home for evidence. Exactly how unfair is that? That is why I think there is a strong possibility that Rosen will litigate against the federal government for a violation of his privacy, and win.

By the way, did you happen to find the section in the US code that makes it a crime to have a political/personal motivation when soliciting material from a source? I still haven't been able to find it.

[ProSense]

88. You know

"It is the necessary and usual step when accusing someone of a crime. "

...this is nonsense. 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.

[SlimJimmy]

99. What is nonsense is *your* assertion that a search warrant is not issued against a targeted person

in a criminal investigation. They *had* to list him as a co-conspirator as a means to even get the warrant and not have him notified. I've seen literally hundreds of affidavits in support of search warrants, and I am yet to see one that is not directed toward a target of an investigation or an aider abetter, or co-conspirator. The warrant itself might be issued for (example G-mail), but the affidavit in order to obtain that warrant is *always* directed toward the target of the investigation. This is a teachable moment for you, I suggest you take it. If you continue down this path, you are just going to look foolish.

And one last chance, since I've asked twice already. Please excerpt the section of the US Code you referenced that makes it a criminal offense to have a political/personal motive for obtaining information from a source.

[ProSense]

101. Actually,

"What is nonsense is *your* assertion that a search warrant is not issued against a targeted person in a criminal investigation. "

...I made no such "assertion." You seem to believe that search warrants only apply to the person suspected of a crime.

The warrants issued for AP phone records does not charge an AP journalist with crime. A search warrant could be issued for a residence or business even though the owner is not the target for prosecution.

[SlimJimmy]

107. The warrant may be issued to a person or business, but the affidavit must show probable cause

that a crime was committed, and the warrant is a step in that criminal prosecution. In the case of Rosen, they contended that *he* had committed a crime and the search warrant was issued to obtain his records from a third party against *him*, not Kim. In the case of the AP, I haven't read the affidavit in support of the warrant, but I guarantee you that it contends that a crime was committed, lays out the basis for that belief, and posits that certain as yet to be named individuals in the AP committed those acts. You continue to confuse these issues. Why? I can only suspect two things, you are being obtuse on purpose, or you are woefully ignorant of the facts.

And one more thing. You keep repeating that it is a crime to obtain classified information for political/personal use. If you *actually* read the statute, you will see that it is illegal to RELEASE the classified information, and only criminal if the the classified information RECEIVED is defense related *and* will cause harm to the United States. The affidavit barley addresses the defense information, and doesn't show what harm, if any, would come to the United States if released. Please get it right, get it straight. I'm getting tired of explaining this to you.

Please, show me the section of the statute that makes it a crime to RECEIVE this information based on political/personal motivations. If you can't, then stop repeating this nonsense.

[ProSense]

109. You

"The warrant may be issued to a person or business, but the affidavit must show probable cause that a crime was committed, and the warrant is a step in that criminal prosecution."

...ignored the fact that I said the owner does not have be the target of the criminal investigation. Probable cause is to support the justification for the warrant.

"In the case of Rosen, they contended that *he* had committed a crime and the search warrant was issued to obtain his records from a third party against *him*, not Kim."

No they didn't, and I already mentioned that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2900582

[SlimJimmy]

111. Yes they did, In the affidavit they named him as a co-conspirator and wanted his records

as a means to show he was materially involved in the criminal activity. Here, let me quote the affidavit for you ...

40. 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 aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator of Mr. Kim.

"In the case of Rosen, they contended that *he* had committed a crime and the search warrant was issued to obtain his records from a third party against *him*, not Kim."

No they didn't, and I already mentioned that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2900582

[ProSense]

114. Do you

Yes they did, In the affidavit they named him as a co-conspirator and wanted his records as a means to show he was materially involved in the criminal activity. Here, let me quote the affidavit for you ...

40. 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 aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator of Mr. Kim.

...know where the following is posted:

I suggest that you read it. They were not "trying to prosecute him."

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"

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

You guessed it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2900582

Why exactly are you repeating information I already know (and posted in response to you), but framing it in the same debunked claim?

[SlimJimmy]

119. Wow, the ignorance you are showing relating to the facts here is stunning. Is it really that hard

to say, "Hey maybe I got some of it wrong?" I guess not, since you seem to be doubling down.

All I can say is "Good luck with that." If you want to wallow in your ignorance of the facts, have at it. I've done all I can do to convince you that you are wrong based on them. Get back to me when you've:

1. Actually read the affidavit in support of the warrant
2. Read and understand the appropriate US statute that covers the offense.
3. Learn the difference between releasing and receiving classified information
4. Understand that having political/personal motives is not a crime.

[ProSense]

121. More obfuscation with a touch of disingenuous shock. n/t

[woo me with science]

124. Excellent summary.

Thank you, SlimJimmy, for your patience in systematically challenging the ridiculous claims being made here and demanding legal justification for what the government did. In this era of creeping authoritarianism and manipulative use of rank partisanship to defend it, it is good to see principled Democrats standing up to challenge the sophistry.

The corporate-authoritarian propaganda is thick at DU, but the vast majority of real Democrats 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 OP thread was an embarrassment to DU, and I appreciate your work here to redeem it.

[SlimJimmy]

126. I was just as appalled when Nixon targeted the Pentagon Paper reporters. I remember

being incensed that he would trample on the First Amendment that way. I am just as incensed with the flagrant attack on the AP and Rosen. I'll be damned if I'll stand by while others justify it.

[kentuck]

42. I would agree that it is not as cut and dried as the OP would suggest.

Personally, I would need to know more of the details. Was anyone killed because of the actions of the journalist? Was anyone embarrassed? How much harm was done to the government's case?

[woo me with science]

45. The government had no justification to make the accusation they did

in order to *receive* the warrant. They already knew who the leaker was, and they overstepped their authority, egregiously, in order to go fishing for additional information.

This administration, following and expanding upon the behavior of the previous one, surveils protesters, surveils ordinary Americans, is currently pursuing a legal battle against the union and whistleblowing protections of hundreds of thousands of federal employees, and has targeted leakers in an unprecedented way. IMO we are lucky that this scandal is finally drawing attention to what has, since 9/11, become a frighteningly arrogant attitude by our government toward our fundamental civil protections in this country.

[DevonRex]

81. "Paranoia strikes deep.

Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away"

[url=http://www.desismileys.com/][img][/img][/url]

[SlimJimmy]

113. Please pass that information on to Prosense. I'm getting tired of explaining it to her. (nt)

[maxrandb]

43. Bullshit!

I don't care if you're a fucking "journalist" or a member of Congress...the leaking of classified material, or the attempt to obtain classified material that you have no clearance for, for the purpose of "leaking" said classified material is most certainly a criminal act. See John Walker for one such example.

Please don't confuse this Faux News hack with a "whistleblower". There is a huge "effing" difference.

Think of what the hell would have happened to a "journalist" who was trying to obtain classified information on the Normandy Invasion, and then leaked that classified info because he thought the military attack was "muddle-headed" and he wanted to push the country in a different "foreign policy direction".

Or how about a journalist that learned we had the location of Osama Bin Laden, and "leaked" that info because he thought we weren't taking action promptly enough.

I'm all for open government, but there are numerous cases where keeping things classified is not only proper, it's essential. Peoples lives are at stake! This leak did grave damage to essential and life saving classified operations...not because some whistle-blower sought to expose government corruption or malfeasance, but because a "journalist" working for the PR arm of the Republican Party wanted to "change the course" our National Security team was on.

Being a "journalist" does not make you "exempt" from the laws of this country.

[woo me with science]

46. There was no evidence or even suggestion of criminal behavior here.

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Even the administration has acknowledged that Rosen is not being charged with any crime.

Rosen was targeted, outrageously, based on behaviors that are the norm for any investigative journalist.

[kentuck]

49. Some folks seem to be of the opinion...

...that if it is "classified", then no one has a right to know? Sometimes information can be classified simply because it might be embarrassing.

I'm not sure what information they thought they would get from Rosen? It does seem like a fishing expedition.

I should say, I do not automatically trust the government. I think we must be eternally vigilant, no matter what Party is in the White House.

[SlimJimmy]

50. Actually it's not illegal for a reporter to obtain classified information, except in very well

defined circumstances. The circumstances defined in this case do not meet that criteria.

See 18 USC 18 U.S.C. Sections 793–798.

While other types of relevant information are covered elsewhere. Some provisions apply only to government employees or others who have authorized access to sensitive government information, but many apply to all persons. 18 U.S.C. Section 793 prohibits the gathering, transmitting, or receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation. Violators are subject to a fine or up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or both, as are those who conspire to violate the statute.

Unless Rosen knew that the release of this material would substantially harm the United States, then it would be virtually impossible to prosecute him. And guess what, they aren't going to prosecute him because the release of this information would do little if any harm to the government, even if revealed to a foreign entity.

I don't care if you're a fucking "journalist" or a member of Congress...the leaking of classified material, or the attempt to obtain classified material that you have no clearance for, for the purpose of "leaking" said classified material is most certainly a criminal act. See John Walker for one such example.

[Number23]

56. "Whoever is paying you for good PR might want to rethink that decision"

Whoever is paying you for bad PR should do the same.

Between calling everyone on this damned site "propagandists" and "Third Wayers" or insinuating that they are being paid as you routinely do to Prosense, you are much more adapt at alienating and being unintentionally hilarious than pulling folks over to your side with a well reasoned argument.

Quit with the immature, stupid and completely unnecessary name calling and maybe you could actually get somewhere.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Nailed that one.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. + 1000 ^^^This!^^^

The fact that these Libertarians posing as Liberals on this site believe that there is such a thing as "free press" should disqualify them from even engaging in this debate. But it won't stop them.

The DoJ is not going to pursue this if they don't believe they have the evidence to convict. Let's see if WooWoo, Tucky, and Slimmy will go off in silence when this happens.

Free press my ass. There hasn't been a free pass since Raygun killed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

[SlimJimmy]

135. Sure, that's why the DOJ shopped a judge to sign the search warrant.

The DoJ is not going to pursue this if they don't believe they have the evidence to convict. Let's see if WooWoo, Tucky, and Slimmy will go off in silence when this happens.

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, it was weak case to begin with, and a warrant should *never* have been issued. But we'll all hold our breath waiting for them to prosecute Rosen with this overwhelming evidence to convict you seem to think they have.

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

[elehhhhna]

62. love ya, PS and I'll get my ass kicked but here goes:

If someone in the media had successfully done this during the runup to the invasion of Iraq, we'd have been grateful.

Sleazy but I suspect that investigative reporting is like sausagemaking.

[ProSense]

63. The problem

"If someone in the media had successfully done this during the runup to the invasion of Iraq, we'd have been grateful. "

...during the runup to the illegal "invasion of Iraq," the media was complicit. Also, many of us supported the investigation into the leak of classified information.


Fox News Is a Terrible Advocate for Freedom of the Press

And, in fact, Fox News has, since 2008, had someone on the payroll who understands the perils for journalists once prosecutors begin hunting for leaks: Judith Miller, the ex-New York Times correspondent who went to prison in 2005 rather than give up her sources during the investigation into the leak of the classified identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. She went on air to address the White House leaks matter last summer, and while, not exactly dissenting from the consensus Fox News view that people should go to jail over the Sanger book, she wasn't nearly as zealous in her support of a prosecution.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/fox-news-terrible-advocate-freedom-press/65419/

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

This case is more like her Iraq reporting...

The Source of the Trouble

Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong.

- more -

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

...and like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if his goal was to attempt to spin us into war. Kim spent the time since 9/11 advising the Bush administation, including Cheney about the "dangers posed by North Korea": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121

[marshall]

28. I assume the OP is being ironic

When read in the proper frame of reference there are some amusing albeit hyperbolic remarks.

[woo me with science]

31. As you can see above, the OP is embarrassingly and disturbingly serious,

and if she were employed by me to do PR for any organization seeking to increase trust in any government-based group, I would be in horror at what she has posted here.

[ProSense]

34. Evidently

"As you can see above, the OP is embarrassingly and disturbingly serious, and if she were employed by me to do PR for any organization seeking to increase trust in any government-based group, I would be in horror at what she has posted here."

...you have no argument except silly innuendo.

I mean, " if you were employed by me to do PR for any organization seeking to increase trust in any government-based group," I'd laugh at the incompetence.

Alas, you're not, but I can still...

[marshall]

57. I still think it is online street theatre

Everyone joins in and makes it a sort of flash mob, and we all get a few laughs.

[Skip Intro]

68. +100. Nothing but spin from the OP, as if that changes reality.

If it were a repub admin involved in such things, the poster, and this entire board, would be outraged and up in arms. Because it happens to be a Democratic admin, many want to embrace ridiculous spin and pretend none of it matters.

It is a serious issue when the government targets and spies on media (or political opponents) no matter who is in office.

There are much bigger things at stake.

[ProSense]

70. Aren't

"Nothing but spin from the OP, as if that changes reality."

...you still looking for ways to link the President to the Benghazi and the IRS scamdals?


"If it were a repub admin involved in such things, the poster, and this entire board, would be outraged and up in arms. Because it happens to be a Democratic admin, many want to embrace ridiculous spin and pretend none of it matters. "

Maybe you should let go of the tired talking points. I mean, some of us have always supported investigation into the leak of classified information. http://ww.democraticunderground.com/10022857091

[Skip Intro]

71. Clearly

I'm not the only one who sees your work for what it is.

Btw, your link, rather appropriately, leads to nothing.

[ProSense]

74. When

"Clearly, I'm not the only one who sees your work for what it is. "

...you say "what it is," do you mean presenting enough facts to piss off the anti-Obama talking point pushers?

[Skip Intro]

82. What

I mean is what I've said.

[DevonRex]

73. No, what's ridiculous is that once again you side with Fox

and Rosen even though he is clearly not acting as a journalist. Hilarious and quite revealing.

[woo me with science]

83. Baseless government targeting of journalists is never hilarious.

Neither is brazen advocacy of picking and choosing who is a journalist and who is not based on political leanings.

These are all very disturbing signs of corruption in a democratic society.

[ProSense]

89. But

"Neither is brazen advocacy of picking and choosing who is a journalist and who is not based on political leanings."

...fishing for classified information for personal and political gain is peachy and designed to protect democracy.

"These are all very disturbing signs of corruption in a democratic society."

The real "disturbing signs" are the BS defensed of Fox Noise.

Explain how Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and the Fox Noise hacks shining examples of a "corruption"-free "democratic society"?

[Scurrilous]

37. K & R

[Aerows]

48. It wouldn't surprise me

There is apparently tons of money to be made in espionage if you overlook the treason charges that can potentially come along with that profession.

Some people don't give a shit about betraying their country and fellow citizens for power and possessions.

[spanone]

66. k&r...

[Marr]

92. I wonder if you'll be so blase when it's a Republican WH going after reporters?

I mean, I assume you'll take the reporters' political leanings, voting habits, etc. into account then as well.

[ProSense]

95. Again,

"I wonder if you'll be so blase when it's a Republican WH going after reporters? I mean, I assume you'll take the reporters' political leanings, voting habits, etc. into account then as well."

...as I posted elsewhere, I remember all the cries about how Fox Noise is a propaganda outlet, some demanding that the FCC pull its license, it's fascinating that anyone is defending one of its hacks, who had a clear purpose to disrupt for personal and political gain. In fact, there were even accusations that the Obama administration was trying to prop up Murdoch.

Rosen was seeking out classified information for personal and political gain. 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.

I also don't buy into the notion that anyone is shocked that reporters become targets during a criminal investigation into the leak of classified information.

Fox News Is a Terrible Advocate for Freedom of the Press

And, in fact, Fox News has, since 2008, had someone on the payroll who understands the perils for journalists once prosecutors begin hunting for leaks: Judith Miller, the ex-New York Times correspondent who went to prison in 2005 rather than give up her sources during the investigation into the leak of the classified identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. She went on air to address the White House leaks matter last summer, and while, not exactly dissenting from the consensus Fox News view that people should go to jail over the Sanger book, she wasn't nearly as zealous in her support of a prosecution.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/fox-news-terrible-advocate-freedom-press/65419/

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

This case is more like her Iraq reporting...

The Source of the Trouble

Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong.

- more -

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

...and like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if his goal was to attempt to spin us into war. Kim spent the time since 9/11 advising the Bush administation, including Cheney, about the "dangers posed by North Korea": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121

Did you support the Plame investigation?
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022850304

I did, no hypocrisy here.

[woo me with science]

97. You keep repeating this:

"Rosen was seeking out classified information for personal and political gain."

as though it were a legal justification for the US government to accuse him of a felony and place him under surveillance.

Your repetition of this like a mantra, as though it were any legal justification at all, is disingenuous and disturbing.

[ProSense]

98. And

"You keep repeating this: "Rosen was seeking out classified information for personal and political gain." as though it were a legal justification for the US government to accuse him of a felony and place him under surveillance."

...you keep posting fact-free nonsense. So let me repeat something else: Rosen wasn't having a casual conversation with Kim. He was seeking out classified information for personal and political gain.


Claiming that Rosen was accused of a "felony" is another 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.

<...>

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"

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

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

[woo me with science]

102. You are repeating yourself in arguments

that you could not defend in the other subthread. You still have not presented a legal basis under which the government had justification to accuse Rosen of being a co-conspirator in order to obtain a warrant for surveillance.

I am not going to participate in your oft-used tactic of attempting to move a discussion somewhere else when you cannot hold your own in it. Please return to the other subthread and respond to the specific questions and challenges that were made to you there. As far as I am concerned, this subthread is useful only as a demonstration of your evasion of a direct argument.

[ProSense]

105. Why

"You are repeating yourself in arguments"

...not. All you keep posting the same basic point:

"...You still have not presented a legal basis under which the government had justification to accuse Rosen of being a co-conspirator in order to obtain a warrant for surveillance."

It's as if you believe that simply being dismissive of the facts is an argument.


"I am not going to participate in your oft-used tactic of attempting to move a discussion somewhere else when you cannot hold your own in it. Please return to the other subthread and respond to the specific questions and challenges that were made to you there. As far as I am concerned, this subthread is useful only as a demonstration of your evasion of a direct argument."

Ah, now you're projecting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2897946
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2898045
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356#post56

[SlimJimmy]

100. I'm still waiting for Prosense to excerpt the part of the applicable US Code that

makes it a criminal offense to have political/personal motivations when obtaining information from a source. So far ... nothing.

[woo me with science]

103. +1

[ProSense]

104. I see

"I'm still waiting for Prosense to excerpt the part of the applicable US Code that makes it a criminal offense to have political/personal motivations when obtaining information from a source. So far ... nothing."

...you're now attempting to make your red herring a gotcha!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356

Oh, I can repeat that all day in response to the repetitive red herring.

[SlimJimmy]

108. No, I'm waiting for you to show me something in writing that you contend here repeatedly.

It's either in the US code or it isn't. As they say put up, or shut up.

[ProSense]

110. Hey,

"No, I'm waiting for you to show me something in writing that you contend here repeatedly. It's either in the US code or it isn't. As they say put up, or shut up. "

...stop obfuscating. You want something that you know doesn't exist. In fact, the request is a downright silly red herring that you're using to avoid the real issue. You insist that his "political/personal motivations are *not* a crime," but the issue is his involvement with the leak of classified information : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2900582

Feel free to go on your own wild goose chase.

[SlimJimmy]

112. In other words, you can't provide the simple bit of information I requested that would prove

your repeated assertion. Got it.

[ProSense]

115. No, the "other words" are your desperate obfuscation. n/t

[SlimJimmy]

117. Look, I've documented every contention I've made. It's all here in the thread. You, on the

hand, have made numerous contentions that I have challenged. The first was the wrong US Code, then the contention that Rosen wasn't listed as a co-conspirator in the affidavit. And finally that it was a crime to have political/personal motivations when receiving information from a source. As I've said a number of times, either put up or shut up. It's really just that simple.

[ProSense]

118. Actually,

"Look, I've documented every contention I've made. It's all here in the thread. You, on the hand, have made numerous contentions that I have challenged. The first was the wrong US Code, then the contention that Rosen wasn't listed as a co-conspirator in the affidavit. And finally that it was a crime to have political/personal motivations when receiving information from a source. As I've said a number of times, either put up or shut up. It's really just that simple."

...all you've done is make inaccurate claims, put words in my mouth, and make circular arguments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2901808

[SlimJimmy]

120. All I've done is document facts. That you don't like that is not my problem.

[ProSense]

123. You mean

"All I've done is document facts. That you don't like that is not my problem."

..."facts" like insisting I made a claim I didn't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2901556

[Skip Intro]

130. Said poster will not put up nor shut up. Facts are irrelevant.

Endless bs is the game. Spin until you get tired of responding to it and he/she takes that as a win, like the truth has been somehow altered.

[SlimJimmy]

132. I understand. I've not only made my points, but documented them. All anyone has to do is read

the thread to see that. The first amendment is too important to play games with. I don't really give a damn that the reporter in this case worked for Fox News; it's the principle that matters to me.

[Skip Intro]

133. Indeed.

[Marr]

136. If it means anything, I did read the exchange-- and

it comes off like a reasonable person trying to hold a conversation with someone who can only respond with smoke bombs and urges to 'look over there!'.

[SlimJimmy]

137. Sometimes we have to put up with the smoke bombs in our attempt to educate. I appreciate

you reading through the thread. I know it got to be quite long as the day wore on. Hopefully, we all learned something as a result.

[limpyhobbler]

93. newsCORPSE ?

LOL

[ProSense]

96. ?

Problem?


Mosque Arsonist Tells Judge: “I Only Know What I Hear On Fox News”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022037175

[limpyhobbler]

127. Scraping the bottom of the barrel I guess. nt

[woo me with science]

129. LOL

"Newscorpse."

Yeah, that's about the state of this OP.

[limpyhobbler]

131. To be fair, they are having a difficult week.

I don't envy the job have having to defend the indefensible.

[ProSense]

134. "I don't envy the job have having to defend the indefensible. "

Fox?

[limpyhobbler]

138. OK that was funny.

[ProSense]

139. Kicking for

woo me with science http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2906279