New York Times Won't Attend Off-The-Record Eric Holder Meeting - NYT

[WillyT]

New York Times Won't Attend Off-The-Record Eric Holder Meeting
Michael Calderone - HuffPo
Posted: 05/29/2013 5:54 pm EDT

<snip>

NEW YORK -- The New York Times will not attend a meeting this week between Attorney General Eric Holder and the Washington bureau chiefs of several media outlets to discuss guidelines for journalists in leak investigations.

Times executive editor Jill Abramson cited the Justice Department's request that the discussion be kept off the record as a reason for not attending.

"We will not be attending the session at DOJ," Abramson said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "It isn't appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general. Our Washington bureau is aggressively covering the department's handling of leak investigations at this time."

<And...>

With the Times refusing to accept the off-the-record ground rules, it seems likely other news organizations will similarly decline to meet with Holder.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/eric-holder-new-york-times-off-the-record_n_3355251.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I'm proud of this administration!

They've done more to stop press meddling than anything since the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[WillyT]

3. :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

8. ......

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. And many here don't get it

So perhaps, we need to celebrate. What about some cake? I mean that's all those complainers deserve.

[Safetykitten]

63. Huzzah for our side Manny!

[ProSense]

2. Posturing

Here is the full statement.

UPDATE: 5:15 p.m. -- New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson said in a statement to The Huffington Post that her paper will not attend the Holder meeting, citing the off-the-record ground rules. Her statement is below:

We will not be attending the session at DOJ. It isn’t appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general. Our Washington bureau is aggressively covering the department’s handling of leak investigations at this time.

Evidently, there will be a future session with department officials on the substance of how the law should be applied in leak cases and I am hopeful that our counsel, David McCraw, will be able to participate in that meeting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/eric-holder-bureau-chiefs_n_3352962.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory

The NYT is just as complicit as the rest of the media in its handling of this.

CNN: DOJ Has Proof It Alerted News Corp. Of Rosen Subpoena
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022918692

[WillyT]

12. Yeah That Damned NYT And WaPo... The Pentagon Papers... The Watergate Scandal...

If it weren't for them, Richard Nixon could have completed his second term...and who knows which Republican would have become president in 1976.

[ProSense]

15. Two words:

"If it weren't for them, Richard Nixon could have completed his second term...and who knows which Republican would have become president in 1976."

....Judith Miller.

Thanks to the NYT reporting nearly 1 million people were killed.

Thanks to the NYT reporting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2918832

[WillyT]

21. I Do Not Stand With These, Or Any, Media 100% Of The Time, But...

I do stand with the ideas of the 4th Estate, and the 1st Amendment almost all of the time.

[phleshdef]

55. And yet the 4th estate and the 1st amendment can and will continue to function as always.

However, simply BEING a media organization does not afford you special privileges. The government has the RIGHT to investigate leaks and being a member of the media does not give you some special right to be exempt from having your phone records examined if you are suspected of corroborating with a leaker.

I'm all for transparency. If someone leaks something that proves the government did something illegal and that's all they leaked, then they should ultimately be immune from prosecution. But whether they exposed something illegal or not, they should be subject to investigation and a court should decide whether or not they should be subject to prosecution.

[WillyT]

85. Sorry... I Disagree... Even Nixon Was Talked Down From This...

You can try to investigate the leak all you like.

But you cannot go after the reporters that received the leak... except for letting them sit in jail and mull over their decision... which usually led to a judge letting them go... due to 1st Amendment concerns.

Unless of course... you are so afraid for your life, you don't give a damn about the Constitution anymore.

[randome]

88. The government can ALWAYS go after reporters if there is evidence they committed a crime.

Merely printing something the government does not want the world to know is not such evidence. But that's not what the Rosen/News Corps story is about.

The facts will speak for themselves and the chips will fall where they may.

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

[phleshdef]

90. Fuck Nixon. Nixon is a whole different story. And who is "going after" reporters?

Looking at a reporters phone records to catch a CRIMINAL that said reporter has been working with is not the same thing as arresting and jailing a reporter for reporting. And anyone leaking classified info is indeed committing a crime, theres no way out of that fact.

[WillyT]

92. So... Give Us Your Opinion Of Daniel Ellsberg...

[phleshdef]

95. I pretty much already did.

What part of "If someone leaks something that proves the government did something illegal and that's all they leaked, then they should ultimately be immune from prosecution." do you have difficulty understanding?

Regardless, as I said in that same post, I believe the government has the right to pursue leakers of classified information because leaking classified information is against the law. And if pursuing those leakers means looking at reporter's phone records, then so be it. As long as they get a subpoena and carry out the investigation in such a way that other branches of government have the chance to participate in the process of accountability, then that's fine. I see nothing in any of these recent investigations of leaks that have violated any of those principles.

[WillyT]

96. You Are A Good Amerikan... Have A Pat On The Back...

[phleshdef]

97. My position is legally, ethically and morally sound.

But since you are unable to refute it and failed to place me in a position that would make me appear ethically compromised, I guess you are falling back on poorly animated smileys and condescending prickishness. That's fine. It just reflects less on you and your flawed view on the whole matter.

[asjr]

129. Good for you. You have thought things through an unbiased mind.

[MotherPetrie]

29. "Thanks to the NYT reporting nearly 1 million people were killed"

And Eric Holder's DOJ isn't the slightest bit concerned about investigating the actual architects of the criminal war responsible for that destruction.

[cali]

31. oh for fuck's sake. your defense shit is just sad and pathetic.

[ProSense]

36. Tough fucking shit

Fuck Fox and fuck the complicit media.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2918938

Fuck em. If you don't like it, tough shit.

You're substance-freee comment is what's fucking "sad and pathetic."

[WillyT]

41. Calm Down...

This country, after the Articles Of Confederation (and the revolutionary war), decided that instead of the colonies becoming Europe-like, debated the Constitution in order to not make the same mistakes as Europe (From which they fled).

And...

Although the Constitution was a lovely and well thought out paradigm...

It WOULD NOT BE RATIFIED... Until they came up with a Bill of Rights...

And the First Bill said...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[ProSense]

47. Actually,

"Calm Down..."

...I'm very calm. Meeting about improving shield laws is one thing. The investigation is another thing entirely.

Why James Rosen Is Not Blameless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022918986

[Safetykitten]

60. Great. Good to know towing that barge up the river denial does not exhaust you.

[ProSense]

81. Oh look

"Great. Good to know towing that barge up the river denial does not exhaust you."

...more hypocrisy. How does it feel to be carrying water for Fox Noise and the complicit media?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2919197

[phleshdef]

57. The defense as presented is fairly ironclad and irrefutable.

Its sad and pathetic that you ignore the fact that you are completely unable to refute it.

[WillyT]

65. Wha... ??

[Luminous Animal]

17. I'd like to see that "proof". If they could wave it at a reporter, they certainly could allow the

press to chronicle it and confirm it.

[ProSense]

23. Here is the

complicit NYT burying the lede and misleading:

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

[Luminous Animal]

25. I don't read your self-referential blue links. Too much propaganda to slog through.

[ProSense]

39. Cop out. You read my comments, though.

"I don't read your self-referential blue links."

Silliness and denial wrapped up in a cheap cop out.

[Luminous Animal]

51. Yes. I will read your original posts and your comments. I won't click on your blue links that link

to your own post. Often, they are propaganda that is refuted in the comments but yet you present them as established fact.

[hughee99]

86. In all fairness,

when you spend most of your day adamantly defending the administration even on things they may be wrong on it's tough to post the same "They did it too, and it was worse..." or "it's different THIS time because..." justifications for things that we would have never found acceptable during a repuke administration. Sometimes you have to link back to something you've already written to avoid carpal tunnel.

[Luminous Animal]

105. :)

[graham4anything]

4. there are millions of off the record meetings in the history of the US. NY Times are hypocrites

Amazing how hypocritical the NY Times is, wanting their own little secrets but not wanting anyone else to have them.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Go get 'em, tiger!

This nation was FOUNDED on secret laws.

What's the problem with these people?

[One of the 99]

5. Just another member of the millionaire press corps

having a tantrum because they are not receiving rights and privileges above those of the average person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I guess the first does not apply to you then

How silly of me?

[One of the 99]

111. No I'm an average person

who doesn't have easy access to elected officials, doesn't have a huge megaphone to air my grievences and get paid a huge salary to do so, who can help sell an illegal war to the people and not face a single consequence, who can lie about one presidential candidate while helping another steal an election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Phew, the first still applies to you then

As to access to public officials...you do...and it is also covered under the First. You might have heard of mail, the phone and the rest. These days it's actually easy.

I highly encourage you to exercise these rights, all all levels of government, starting with local boards, on and up.

[One of the 99]

115. Give me a break

Try going to your congressperson's office in DC and see if you get in for a meeting vs. the access that one of our millionaire press corps has. If you think it is the same, then you are either painfully naive or intellectually dishonest.

But if you want to defend a bunch of spoiled, entitled millionaires who helped Bush & Cheney sell an illegal war, then go right ahead.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. I will give you a break

Just don't want to do what a citizen needs to do.

FYI, you too can make appointments. Depending how good your congress critter is, you too can get a meeting. It's called constituent services.

Admittedly, (yes hunter I am talking about you) some congress critters are allergic to both media (have never seen a congressman run away from press that fast) and their own constituents.

What I am reading are excuses for the most part.

But serious, you too can do that. It's a guaranteed right. But use your excuses. Go on

[One of the 99]

119. No I don't think the millionaire press corp should have right above the average citizen.

You think these privileged millionaire who helped Bush lie us into an illegal war should. You're the one making excuse for these lying millionaires. I'm calling them out on their BS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. They don't, that is the point that you are missing by more than

just a mile... I would say by a solar light year.

[One of the 99]

124. You're the one missing the point.

And defending a bunch of entitled millionaires who helped Bush lie us into an illegal war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Given that most reporters are all but millionaires

I would say you have a very skewed view of rights. So here is the first once again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I want you to point to the rest of the class where in this is the place of the press superior to the rest of the dependent clauses in it.

If you cannot understand that there is no superior place I will rest my case.

And if Media people are millionaires I will eat my hat. You are confusing the owners of the media concerns with the people actually doing the grunt work. That I cannot help.

[One of the 99]

128. A skewed view of rights

is maintaining that the millionaire press corps has more rights than the average person. And most that are on tv and are print columnists are millionaires. Every network white house correspondent is being paid a high six figure or seven figure salary. To deny that is to deny reality. As it is to think that if any private citizen were to do with the AP or James Rosen did, that they wouldn't have faced far more serious consequences than having their phone records subpoenaed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. You keep saying what is not being written at all

As they say, one can lead a horse to water, but can't force the horse to drink it.

Have a wonderful life in la-la land.

[One of the 99]

134. I keep saying it

because that is how our millionaire press corps is acting.

[Luminous Animal]

19. And what rights and privileges would those be?

[One of the 99]

112. To lie about Al Gore

and help Bush become president. To then help Bush sell an illegal war to the people.

If any individual citizen did what the AP or James Rosen did, they would have had much more done to them. But our millionaire press corps think they are above that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. What exactly did the AP do?

I think it's time to remind you of the first amendment. (By the way, welcome to the press corp, bloggers, you are one, are considered media)


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


What you want is for the government to authorize national security stories, and to prosecute media for doing their protected job. You are also encouraging the use of the espionage act as a cudgel. This s borderline Nixonian, and all but liberal or patriotic, or following traditional American values.

I guess the DOJ, as long as it is controlled by Dems, should create a dept of truth, we will scream at how in american it is as soon as a republican takes the White House.

Is the Press perfect? Nope, but what some here want scares the daylights out of me.

[One of the 99]

118. The didn't expose the lies

That's what they did.

And interesting that you didn't highlight freedom of speech. If any individual did what Rosen or the AP did, they would have far more than their phone records subpoenaed. The millionaire press corps doesn't have rights above the rest of the people. Nor are they above the law. As Howard Dean said they are thin-skinned and sanctimonious. They think they are entitled. But they are not. They lied about Al Gore and gave us Bush as President. They helped Bush sell his war to the people.

What scares the hell out of me is a bunch of sanctimonious entitled millionaires who lie with impunity and think they have rights that the rest of do not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. I did before, in another post

You are fixated with the press should just go away. Well my dear, that is almost Stalinist in nature.

And you have the exact same rights they do. I am sorry if you are incapable of comprehending that. Or rather making excuses NOT TO EXERCISE THEM.

[One of the 99]

125. Stalinist???

I know that when people start throwing out Stalin and Hilter charges they have no factual or logical arguements left to make.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Actually I do

Taking control of the press was done under the orders of Iosef Stalin, and carried out by the NKVD... with the placement of Komisars. Some of us make comparisons that are actually based on this silly shit called History. It was an authoritarian move, and I see you intend to get rid of the current press by any means.

Tell you what. They are not saints. STOP READING THE FUCKING PRESS!!!! You don't have to. None is forcing you to READ IT. BOYCOTT ALL OF IT! I mean it.

But you and THEM have the exact same rights. Freedom of the Press is NOT superior to any other rights enumerated in the First Amendment.

[One of the 99]

130. And when have I advocated taking control of the press?

I haven't. You're dishonestly putting words in my mouth and creating a strawman arguements because you don't have any factual ones to make.

But I agree with that the freedom of the press is not superior to any other rights enumerated in the 1st amendment. The problem is that our entitled millionaire press corps thinks that their right are superior.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Coming from someone repeating what is not being said that is all kinds of funny

but you know what? I have a limit to dishonesty. Good bye, have a good life in my ignore list.

I will ask the same, that you put me on ignore, but I doubt you will.

Good bye.

[One of the 99]

135. Please it is exactly how they are acting.

And as far as being on your ignore list, that just proves you don't have an honest arguement to make so you're sticking your head in the sand.

[Rex]

7. Fuck the NYT, they made sure GWB got elected in 2004!

Should lose their license over THAT ONE crime alone! Hard for me to feel sorry for a bunch of people that had no problem hiding evidence and lying to cover up a scandal THEY created!

[ProSense]

9. And it's more than Judith Miller

NY Times's excuse for not calling waterboarding "torture" doesn't hold water

<...>

The New York Times has now explained the reasoning behind its decision, and it's pretty surprising. The paper disputed the study's accuracy, but it gave Michael Calderone a statement acknowledging the shift and conceding that Bush administration entreaties were partly responsible:

"As the debate over interrogation of terror suspects grew post-9/11, defenders of the practice (including senior officials of the Bush administration) insisted that it did not constitute torture," a Times spokesman said in a statement.

"When using a word amounts to taking sides in a political dispute, our general practice is to supply the readers with the information to decide for themselves. Thus we describe the practice vividly, and we point out that it is denounced by international covenants and in American tradition as a form of torture."

The Times' explanation is that once Bush officials started arguing that waterboarding wasn't torture, the only way to avoid taking sides was to stop using the word. But here's the problem: Not using the word also consitutes taking a side: That of the Bush administration.

That's because this debate wasn't merely a semantic one. It was occuring in a legal context.

- more -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/times_excuse_for_not_calling_w.htm

Blatant complicit: "When using a word amounts to taking sides in a political dispute"

Torture is not a "political dispute."

[MotherPetrie]

35. So why didn't Obama/Holder's DOJ prosecute those responsible for the torture?

Or is the NYT's failure to call waterboarding torture, worse than the Obama administration's failure to do anything the torture that was practiced?

[Luminous Animal]

10. The Times endorsed John Kerry.

[ProSense]

33. "By the time the Swift Boat story had played out...

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/05/03/eric-boehlerts-lapdogs-on_n_20318.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1297992

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. how? they endorsed kerry and criticized bush multiple times

[cali]

34. fuck lying piles of steaming dogshit

they endorsed Kerry, genius. And they wrote ream after critical ream on bushco.

stop posting obvious lies.

[CJCRANE]

82. They held back on the warrantless wiretapping story

until after the election. They lied about WMD. They're not blameless by any means.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Fuck 'em

The leak investigations are totally legal and the media acts like a bunch of fucking babies when the DOJ looks into the release of classified information

The Faux Newz journalist actively tried to solicit classified information. Information they knew was classified.

It's OK because he was a journalist?

Bullshit. Fuck the media.

These are the same assholes that were cheerleading the Iraq war.

Fuck 'em. I hope the Justice Department investigates the shit out of all of 'em.

Criminal fucks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. If this happened under bush I am sure you

would be leading the outrage parade.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. yeah. its amazing how malleable principles can be

[ProSense]

26. Yup, especially

when the media goes out of their way to be complicit with Bush, and given the first opportunity jump to the RW/Republican defense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857091

Where is the outrage about the doctored Benghazi e-mail?

The Lie Matters: What Did Sen Coburn Know about the Edited Benghazi Email and How Did He Know It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022868542

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022916639

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Yeah, it is.

[ProSense]

18. Exactly! n/t

[Luminous Animal]

24. There are quite a few organizations who are fighting back on these "legal" abuses concocted by Bush

and carried forward by Obama.

And yes, ACTIVELY seeking classified information from sources is EXACTLY what national security reporters do.

[ProSense]

28. What about

"There are quite a few organizations who are fighting back on these "legal" abuses concocted by Bush"

...those that were covering for Bush: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2918832

We only learn this crap after the fact. They apologize when they get caught.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. What? Stories don't just come to reporters in the middle of the night?

Just kidding.



It seems some folks would prefer we got over the pretenses and just got Pravda going. As bad as fox is, they rarely do journalism. Pravda, they'd be shot...it strikes me this is what some want...a real life ministry of truth.

To be honest...damn scary.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Title 18, United States Code Section 793(d)

Where is the exception for journalists?

(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;

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. My dear this is silly at this point

In the end the media will likely get that shield law, cause people are too stupid to get the First Amendment, which incidentally covers you too...when posting here...congrats...you are media too.

I will say it again, if this happened in oh 2007... You'd lead the outrage parade.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. The law is silly?

Written there in black and white.

Don't break the fucking law.

PERIOD.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. So perhaps we need to have all stories approved by the state?

That is exactly where your logic is leading. The Pentagon Papers...remember those? Remember how SCOTUS ruled?

(Some folks prefer dystopias as long as it is our team doing it)

[Cali_Democrat]

50. Rosen broke the law prior to publication of the story

When Rosen tried to activity solicit classified information from Kim at the State Department, he broke Title 18, United States Code Section 793(d).

Fucker should be prosecuted and his ass tossed in jail.

Oh he's a journalist?

I don't give a fuck and the law doesn't care either.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Aren't we the civil libertarians today...NOT!!!

I see you missed the Pentagon papers and SCOTUS.

Have a wonderful day.

For the record, don't smoke...

So are you going to volunteer for the freedom of the press Komisar Office? You sure have the temperament for it.

[Luminous Animal]

61. Jesus Christ. Rosen didn't do what any investigative reporters do. Cultivate sources, squeeze info,

classified or not, and report when they are successful.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. Jesus Christ. What part of section 793(d) do you not understand?

Where is the exception for investigative reporters?

[Luminous Animal]

71. It looks like you agree with Nixon that The New York Times should have been prosecuted for the

Pentagon Papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Section 793 of the Espionage Act was cited by Attorney General John N. Mitchell as cause for the United States to sue to bar further publication of stories based upon the Pentagon Papers. The statute was spread over three pages of the United States Code Annotated and the only part that appeared to apply to the Times was 793(e), which made it criminal for:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over 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 to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.[1]

Fortunately, the courts came down on the side of Freedom of the Press.

[Cali_Democrat]

72. 793(e) is not 793(d)

Two different sections of Title 18.

And the federal magistrate and federal judge ruled there was probable cause that 793(d) was violated by Rosen. That's why they approved the search warrant.

[Luminous Animal]

98. You know, judges are rolling over for these secret warrents and it has got to stop.

Secret warrants, secret courts, secret witnesses (Manning trial). The difference between Nixon and Obama, is that the press was able to fight back AND WIN because Nixon was compelled to prosecute in the open whereas Obama has access to Bush's Orwellian secret judicial system and uses it.

The two sections referenced.

(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

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over 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 to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it;

Apparently, citing 793(d) in the Rosen case acknowledges that Kim LAWFULLY had possession of the information. There is only one distinction between the two and that are the words "lawfully" and "unauthorized".


So yes, you agree with Nixon.

[Cali_Democrat]

79. Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case

"Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo[7] photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it"

Daniel Ellsberg sought to disclose it. There was no proof the media actively solicited the information from Ellsberg before he photocopied it and before it was given to them.

Rosen, however, actively solicited the information from Kim.

Two different cases entirely.

[Luminous Animal]

53. It has been well-established that reporters are not breaking the law when they publish classified

info. Much of the original reporting on the killing of bin Laden was from classified information. Is the justice department going after those leakers and reporters? I expect not.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. "It has been well-established that"

(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;

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

It's a crime to activity solicit classified information regardless of profession. Please point me to the part that makes exceptions for journalists when it comes to soliciting classified information.

[Luminous Animal]

67. No. Nixon tried to make it a crime to solicit and publish. He failed. And nowhere in your linked

text is the criminalization of reporters asking their sources for information. Furthermore, you will have to prove that journalists are not entitled to receive the information because, like I said, it has been well established that they are.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. The law does not distinguish between reporters and other people

You and your buddies on this thread are trying to make that distinction to no avail. You can't point to any law that makes that distinction.

However, I can point to a specific law that makes no distinction.

Keep trying though. It's amusing.

[BlueCheese]

80. I don't see where it says "solicit" in that.

[Nye Bevan]

27. All this unpleasantness could be avoided if the press simply learned not to upset the Government.

There are plenty of human interest stories to cover. Sports. Weather. Horoscopes. Why get involved with leaks and stuff?

As DUers upthread have said, fuck the press. What the hell have they ever done for us?

[WillyT]

37. LOL !!! ... + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[Honeycombe8]

42. Good for them. nt

[Poll_Blind]

43. UPDATE: Associated Press, Huffington Post will NOT attend if "off the record" either. nt

PB

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. That should give a message to the DOJ

I expect the "war" to heat up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. Meh. Huffpo is just another RW rag, amiright? n/t

[DevonRex]

48. Fuck the NYT. Stenographers for GWB and his Iraq War. Now pretending

to be so goddamned above everyone else? Ethics? They wouldn't recognize ethics without dollar signs plastered all over 'em, followed by a big fat number and a helluva lotta zeroes.

[Nye Bevan]

73. Yeah. Shut 'em down. Seize their assets.

That will send an unmistakable message to those other so-called newspapers, too.

[DevonRex]

104. They were a mouthpiece newspaper for Bush. Funny how

they're still in the tank for the RW, which is what Rosen is - a RW operative. Journalist? Don't make me laugh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

107. Too funny.

Now, I know Fox News isn't always news, and it's NEVER "fair and balanced". As far as James Rosen goes though, he earned a Master's Degree in Journalism from Northwestern and subsequent to that was an employee of Dan Rather's at CBS (he drew his pay straight from Rather's pocket, not from CBS). Rather actually speaks quite highly of him.

Here's a pretty informative C-SPAN interview with Rosen...

www.c-spanvideo.org/program/205050-1

[DevonRex]

108. Check out why he wanted the info. To influence the State Department.

Not acting as a journalist there. Nope. And wrote a story revealing the CIA had a source in North Korea re its nuclear program. Funny how these RW operatives just love to out CIA sources. Or don't you find that offensive anymore? Is it because Obama is president now?

If Judy Miller had been investigated the way she damned well should have been for outing Plame, and it had led to Dick fucking Cheney, would you have cried tears for him? Or her? The willing accomplice to the Iraq War invasion, outing a CIA agent and god knows what else? Everybody was pissed off that nothing happened. The investigation was a sham and so was the trial.

But investigate what the RW is doing TODAY and Obama's evil, Holder's evil. It's the most illogical stupid fucking thing I've ever seen. But go ahead and pretend the NYT is golden. Go ahead and pretend Fox is great and that Rosen was acting as a journalist. It's fucking hilarious.

[Rex]

109. People seem to not care at all about that.

This cry is about as bad as listening to someone cry about their 'freedumbs'. Why would I trust the NYT NOW, when I have not since 2004? Trust someone that covers up future war crimes (that seem to be a-okay with no criminal prosecution of the BFEE gang) I don't think so.

People here pretend the reason is to protect the journalist, bullshit the NYT covered up a nationwide scandal that changed the outcome of an election.

No thanks, pass.

[DevonRex]

110. Thank goodness

for people like you who haven't forgotten what they did. I took it personally, as a very real betrayal of something I held dear. They have yet to earn back my trust. At this rate, hell will freeze over first.

[Safetykitten]

54. Now this is stupid. The press does not see that is is good for us? For them?

Why would the New York Times do such a stupid thing? Refuse an off the record meeting for our leaders to go over the guidelines of our free and open society? What part do they not get?

Off course it has to be off the record. These new times call for new thinking-modern thinking! Not like in the past where reporters uncovered things nasty and vile. Things got messy! Of course our dear leaders would want to go over the very few I am sure issues that would make them and our important newzdeliveryservz act in unison.

These people that live in the past....sheesh.

[WillyT]

62. And It Is Fascinating How Many So-Called Democrats, Progressives, And Liberals... Support This...

As has been said MANY times... If GW Bush had done this...

Well... you know the rest.

[Safetykitten]

64. OUTRAGE! Oh...us....nevermind.

[ProSense]

70. Some of us

"And It Is Fascinating How Many So-Called Democrats, Progressives, And Liberals... Support This...As has been said MANY times... If GW Bush had done this..."

...are not hypocrites. 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. The claim that the DOJ was "going after political enemies" is utter nonsense. That is the red herring that makes the criticism of a legal search warrant bogus.

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

Why James Rosen Is Not Blameless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022918986

CNN: DOJ Has Proof It Alerted News Corp. Of Rosen Subpoena
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022918692

[WillyT]

74. And I Too Hate This... But... As Long As The Press... Considers Fox To Be A Part Of The Press...

They, and by proxy, I... will continue to bitch about this assault on the press.

[ProSense]

77. And

"They, and by proxy, I... will continue to bitch about this assault on the press. "

...I will continue to hold Fox Noise up for the hacks they are, and calling out media complicity.

How New York Times, NPR And Wall Street Journal Print Fossil Fuel Talking Points Without Full Disclosure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022849564

[BlueCheese]

58. Don't they realize it's our team that's in office right now?

Leaks of information are only acceptable when Republicans are in office.

Besides, nothing says transparency like a meeting where the government's top prosecutor tells you what you're allowed to report, but won't let you tell anyone else what he says.

[WillyT]

76. Oh They Realize It... They Just Don't Want To Acknowledge It At All...

[randome]

59. The 'all or nothing' posts on this are absurd. It seems to some that the Press will never be wrong.

No matter what. That position is no better than saying there should never be restrictions on gun ownership because of the 2nd Amendment.

The Press is not omnipotent. They still uncover secrets and publish worthwhile stories. When they abuse their privileges, they should be called to account for it.

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

[Nye Bevan]

78. I know. People reflexively taking the side of the press against the Government is so wrong.

At least, it is when Democrats are in power.

[randome]

83. Reflexively taking anyone's side is wrong. The facts should speak for themselves.

I hardly see evidence of the government wanting to 'chill' the press.

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

[KoKo]

69. Have NO IDEA what to make of this....I don't see NYT's really defying any President

since they have moles and ops into all of them...lastly famous was Judith Miller.. So, I think this is just hyperbole from them.

I would like to think there was a "Real Press" who would defy secret (off the record meetings) with the "People in Power" ...but have hard time believing this could be true.

No WAY that "NYT" would defy the "Power in Chief."

at least that's how I see it...for whatever.

[0rganism]

75. dunno who i have more contempt for, the DOJ or the media whores

In this case, probably the DOJ. C'mon, "off the record" meetings to talk guidelines? isn't it a bit late in the game for that?

Still, bad on the NYT for not even trying to improve things going forward. At least send someone who's having a slow day to represent.

[KoKo]

84. lol's true...they must be able to dig up some Toady...so they can trash them later.

[LittleBlue]

87. Personally I think Holder is dead meat

This is spiraling down the path to "resignation" for "personal reasons" etc.

[Skip Intro]

89. What is the point in talking to the press "off the record?"

Didn't Obama do the same thing on Bengazi just a couple of weeks ago?

What is the point in calling a press conference where everything said is private and "off the record?"

What possible purpose could that serve?

And how does it benefit the people - us - the ones both the government and the media are supposed to serve?

And what happened to transparency?

[randome]

91. Maybe because there is an actual national security issue at stake? Just speculating.

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

[cherokeeprogressive]

94. "Okay guys... here's the deal (shhhhh you can't tell anyone We told you this, ESPECIALLY AMERICANS!)

What's the point of having meetings like this in the first place?

The very notion of the government (no matter WHO'S in charge), having secret meetings with the press seems so Pravda-like.

[randome]

100. You don't think reporters get off-the-record meetings all the time?

I can't say I know how often but I'm betting that with the hundreds of reporters covering the White House and Congress, it happens often enough.

The only thing equivalent to Pravda in this country is Fox News. And they don't even go to the government for talking points so that analogy is stretched pretty thin.

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

[cherokeeprogressive]

106. I'm not so naive as to think reporters don't get off-the-record meetings. Bureau Chiefs? En masse?

Not so much.

I have a lot of respect for you but a Fox as Pravda analogy only seems to fit if the repubs are in control of the Executive Branch and they aren't.

I wonder how many Manning supporters are fine with James Rosen being labeled a co-conspirator in an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant?

Maybe, just maybe, since this whole thing involves nuclear weapons, someone can figure out a way to conflate James Rosen with Julius Rosenberg. That way the Fox reporter can really be brought to some meaningful justice.

[Brickbat]

120. Actually, many reporters do not use "off-the-record" protection, some editors ask their newsrooms

not to use it, and some newsrooms forbid it as policy. It's too easy to muddy the waters with "off the record."

[kentuck]

103. Agreed..

Be careful what you give away. You may not get it back? Eternal vigilance and all that stuff. I say that there should be oversight at all times. If there is no oversight, then those that should be over-seeing should resign from office for failure to do their jobs.

[WillyT]

99. But That's The Actual Question And Confusion...

IOW... WHAT IS... National Security ???

If it's actual national security... yet they cannot tell us why.

And if it's just CYA of embarrassing stuff... they defitely cannot tell us still.

[randome]

102. I know, it's infuriating to not tell the public what secrets you are trying to keep.

And the 'national security' card is likely played far too often.

But if the process has been followed with judicial review, we will eventually find out more. And the DOJ is not after Rosen anyways, they are after the culprit in their midst who was not a whistleblower, apparently, just a blabbermouth.

If someone is in a position of trust and they demonstrate they cannot be trusted, that person needs to be outed. Dismissed. Prosecuted, if warranted.

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

[Blue_Tires]

114. Just to give some background context for better understanding...

or if there are ulterior motives; then to toss out some red herrings or to burn a rival...

It's done regularly on most levels of government and professional sports...

[kentuck]

93. The shit's getting deep...

If the entire media turns against Holder, there is no way Holder can continue to do his job. This is just my opinion but I think he may need to resign? And if anyone in Congress was supposed to have oversight, then they should resign also. There has to be oversight when one branch of government decides to read your email or invade your privacy, whether you are a journalist or not.

[WillyT]

101. And Yet... If He HAD Gone After The Bankers And Wall Street... He'd Have Majority Support...

Ironic, no ???

[Puzzledtraveller]

123. Good for the NYT!

[shawn703]

133. Can someone help a layman out here

It seems to me the uproar is over someone without clearance to receive classified information solicited classified information and printed it. Because they are a member of "the press", they should be protected as well as their conversations with whomever provided them with the classified information they were not cleared to access?

I'm assuming that our enemies couldn't just set up a blog and receive intel under the guise of being a member of "the press". How are the distinctions made between someone who is working for "the press" and someone not working for "the press"?

I think where the line is for me, the press should have the freedom to print whatever they want, but if a crime is committed by the press even receiving the information in the first place, investigators should be able to investigate the crime and hold people accountable. Maybe before issuing warrants the government would have to show to a judge how the information that was leaked was properly classified to protect national security and not just to prevent embarrassment or cover someone's ass?

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. At the high level you are talking off

It is credentialed press...not just any shmoe. Also it takes years fr a reporter to get those contacts and trust.

Watergate and the Pentagon papers SCOTUS judgement should have been the end of it, but these days the Espionage act, used to go after the press in WW1 and the McCarthy period.

[Pragdem]

137. Then I expect them to stay silent when they have future questions...

About how these investigations work.

They were offered answers. If they don't take them now, they should forever hold their fucking peace.