Rosen was informed?

[ProSense]

News Corp says has no record of Fox News subpoena

(Reuters) - News Corp said on Monday it is still reviewing whether it has any record of a notification from the United States government involving a subpoena for a Fox News reporter's phone records..."While we don't take issue with the DOJ's account that they sent a notice to News Corp, we do not have a record of ever having received it," said News Corp spokesman Nathaniel Brown, who added the company is looking into the matter.

<...>

Lawrence Jacobs, the former worldwide general counsel at News Corp during 2010, told Reuters he had no recollection of ever receiving it nor had News Corp found any evidence when it combed through Jacobs' emails.

<...>

A law enforcement official who asked not to be named said in a statement Monday that "In the investigation that led to the indictment of Stephen Kim, the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media. Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures, the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile, and e-mail."

The official said notice went to both News Corp and to the reporter, Rosen.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/27/us-usa-justice-warrant-idUSBRE94Q0MQ20130527

These reports are becoming more and more bizarre. The WSJ updated it's weekend report, but it too is vague and confusing.

News Corp. Was Notified on DOJ's Records Seizures

By DEVLIN BARRETT

The Justice Department notified News Corp NWSA +0.67%., the parent company of Fox News, more than two years ago about the seizure of phone records belonging to a Fox reporter, but a News Corp. spokeswoman said Monday it had no record of such a notice.

"While we don't take issue with the (Justice Department's) account that they sent a notice to News Corp., we do not have any record of ever having received it. We are looking into the matter," she said.

On Saturday, a Fox executive said News Corp. was informed about the seizures, but didn't pass the information to Fox. Also on Saturday, News Corp. said it had been notified and was looking into the matter.

The weekend statements did little to clear up the confusion surrounding who knew what about the controversial move to seize a reporter's phone records in a leak investigation...Over the past week, officials at Fox have denied they were notified of the phone-record subpoenas, while law-enforcement officials insisted they were. A law-enforcement official said the notification was sent by fax, certified letter and email.

- more -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323855804578509313651788532.html

Summary: We knew, we didn't know, they knew, they didn't tell us, but we're looking into it!!!

Fox learned about the subpoena nearly three years ago (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022902690

[dkf]

1. Then what is this: PROSECUTORS FOUGHT TO KEEP ROSEN’S WARRANT SECRET

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.

The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.

E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”

He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.

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

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Phone records versus Rosen's private gmail account. Two entirely different things here.

But way to go trying to find whatever you could to defend a FoxBot. Psst...your political preference is showing.

[Skip Intro]

8. That's really uncalled for.

Some of us are interested in the truth, letting the chips fall where they may.

Trying to reconcile two seemingly contradictory articles is a clearly logical step in the effort of finding the truth.

Assailing the character of anyone who doesn't ascribe to blind worship of any politician is a slimy tactic apparently meant to silence legitimate questioning and criticism of those who serve us and are sworn to uphold our laws and Constitution.

Attacking someone's character is also a pretty clear admission that the attacker has nothing of real substance to offer.

Why not address the issues and spare us the adolescent personal attacks?

[ProSense]

11. You

"Attacking someone's character is also a pretty clear admission that the attacker has nothing of real substance to offer. Why not address the issues and spare us the adolescent personal attacks"

...don't say: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2906279

[Cali_Democrat]

17. "Some of us are interested in the truth"

No...some of you guys are actually Republicans.

You're not fooling anyone.

[Skip Intro]

19. As if to prove my point.

[ProSense]

4. Here:

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.

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

The article is based on the debate about timing (I read the document referenced). The citation involved a scenario (note the language: "her e-mail account&quot related to notification, and it still indicates "even if the notification came after a delay." The judges did not object to the warrant.

[dkf]

5. But Royce Lamberth overturned the two judges.

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.

Is justice saying they didn't use Lamberth's overturning of the order and notified Fox anyway? And shouldn't Rosen be notified as it was his own personal communications that were in question?

[ProSense]

10. That

"But Royce Lamberth overturned the two judges."

...pretty darn clear for the text, isn't it? It was an appeal about the timinng of the notification.

A judge can rule and resolve a sticking point, that is, approve the warrant and insist on notification.

"And shouldn't Rosen be notified as it was his own personal communications that were in question? "

Did you read the OP...the title?

[Kingofalldems]

7. Thanks for all the concern

[dkf]

9. I want all the facts no matter where they fall

I can't stand a bury your head in the stand attitude.

Confront the issue, fix it, and move on. That's how you get a government that works.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Except you seem to side with the republicans on most issues.

[dkf]

14. We are running the Government and this is our chance to do what we need to do.

Bill Clinton figured out how to grow our economy and get us out of a fiscal mess. I always thought we would fix the disaster that was Bush, and get back to the path Clinton set us on.

I am hyper critical because this chance is being lost and squandered.

And these latest scandals are EMBARASSING. I never thought we would see this sort of crap coming from our side.

I want it fixed yesterday because its lessening my faith in government's ability to do a good job and makes me wonder if it can work properly.

So this is me protesting my frustration with the lack of effectiveness I see.

Republicans are happy with Government failure because it makes their case that government is the problem. I'm upset with government failure because I want and expect it to work. When your team's quarterback throws an interception the other team loves it, but you are just angry and frustrated. That's where I am coming from.

[George Gently]

16. These "embarrassing" scandals are the GOP game plan and too many Democrats

are rolling over for it.

BlueCaliDem tried to explain it in post # 3 and the response is the fingers in the ears and "LaLaLaLa."

These are two separate and distinct issues and the news business is trying to confuse and conflate them.

One issue is the SUBPOENA for Rosen's call records and that is what the DOJ notified NewsCorps about two years ago.

The other issue is the SEARCH WARRANT for the substance of Rosen's emails due to the fact that he is implicated in a crime.

The government is NOT required to notify anybody IN ADVANCE that they're executing a search warrant.

[nenagh]

18. Thank you..

your explanation is very clear...

[11 Bravo]

20. Yeah, but Obama should have ... no, wait ... Holder should have ... ah, shit that's not it ...

either. What were you saying again?

(And welcome to DU!)

[grasswire]

2. well, the DOJ should have return receipts on the certified mail. nt

[ProSense]

6. Yes,

"well, the DOJ should have return receipts on the certified mail."

...it should, but how bizarre would last week's outrage and reporting on this be if not only Fox knew, but also Rosen?

It already appears Fox lied, and the claims that News Corp didn't inform Fox and that they have no record adds to the bizarreness.

[Snarkoleptic]

15. I demand an investigation into who didn't know what and when they didn't know it at Faux Newz.

n/t