Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Rosen Case: Questions About the Kim Warrant
The Rosen Case: Questions About the Kim Warrant
Posted by Ryan Lizza
Below is a newly disclosed document from the Obama Administration’s case against Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department adviser accused of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by allegedly giving classified information about North Korea to the Fox News reporter James Rosen...Many of the facts outlined in the Kim warrant were repeated in a subsequent, more controversial warrant for Rosen’s Gmail account, which was uncovered last week. But I’m posting the Kim warrant for people who are following the case closely.
Three things strike me as notable:
1. Even before the government sought this search warrant, and certainly after it executed it, the case against Kim was strong. Early on, the government was able to find crucial e-mails between Kim and Rosen by monitoring Kim’s State Department computer, which Kim used to check his Yahoo account. The government also had detailed phone records documenting numerous calls between the two men, including a call at the very time Kim was logged into his secure computer and was accessing the classified material that showed up in Rosen’s article.
2. Whether Justice should be using the outdated Espionage Act to go after leakers at all is an important question (there may be legal routes that are more apt). But, if you put that aside for a moment and assume it’s an appropriate tool, the strength of the government’s case against Kim, which is clear in this newly disclosed search warrant, makes one wonder again why Attorney General Eric Holder allowed his prosecutors to take the unprecedented step of naming Rosen as an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” to the alleged crime in order to search Rosen’s e-mails.
3. There is some evidence in this search warrant that the government realized that going after Rosen’s personal e-mail would be controversial. A footnote in this document says, “The FBI is not at this time seeking a search warrant for [Rosen’s Gmail account]. Rather, it is restricting its request for e-mail search warrants to accounts associated with Mr. Kim.” That was a notable moment of prosecutorial restraint in a case defined by overreach.
- more -
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/the-rosen-case-questions-about-the-kim-warrant.html
Posted by Ryan Lizza
Below is a newly disclosed document from the Obama Administration’s case against Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department adviser accused of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by allegedly giving classified information about North Korea to the Fox News reporter James Rosen...Many of the facts outlined in the Kim warrant were repeated in a subsequent, more controversial warrant for Rosen’s Gmail account, which was uncovered last week. But I’m posting the Kim warrant for people who are following the case closely.
Three things strike me as notable:
1. Even before the government sought this search warrant, and certainly after it executed it, the case against Kim was strong. Early on, the government was able to find crucial e-mails between Kim and Rosen by monitoring Kim’s State Department computer, which Kim used to check his Yahoo account. The government also had detailed phone records documenting numerous calls between the two men, including a call at the very time Kim was logged into his secure computer and was accessing the classified material that showed up in Rosen’s article.
2. Whether Justice should be using the outdated Espionage Act to go after leakers at all is an important question (there may be legal routes that are more apt). But, if you put that aside for a moment and assume it’s an appropriate tool, the strength of the government’s case against Kim, which is clear in this newly disclosed search warrant, makes one wonder again why Attorney General Eric Holder allowed his prosecutors to take the unprecedented step of naming Rosen as an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” to the alleged crime in order to search Rosen’s e-mails.
3. There is some evidence in this search warrant that the government realized that going after Rosen’s personal e-mail would be controversial. A footnote in this document says, “The FBI is not at this time seeking a search warrant for [Rosen’s Gmail account]. Rather, it is restricting its request for e-mail search warrants to accounts associated with Mr. Kim.” That was a notable moment of prosecutorial restraint in a case defined by overreach.
- more -
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/the-rosen-case-questions-about-the-kim-warrant.html
News Corp. vs. Fox News? (the Rosen story gets even more bizarre)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022910478
Rosen was informed?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022910173
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
