General Discussion

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)

9. They won't even cover it.

Reply to kelliekat44 (Reply #7)

Fri May 24, 2013, 05:20 PM

May 2013

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist [View all] ProSense May 2013 OP

K&R Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #1

And, very possibly matt819 May 2013 #2

I see no difference in what a Russian spy would ask for.. trumad May 2013 #5

Interesting Point matt819 May 2013 #21

Proceed ...the news came out tonight that FOX was informed of this investigation THREE YEARS AGO. nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #125

thanks ProSense Cha May 2013 #3

K&R! hrmjustin May 2013 #4

Kick and Rec! sheshe2 May 2013 #6

How will the media spin this? Probably won't change anything since they hate the Obama admin, kelliekat44 May 2013 #7

They won't even cover it. hrmjustin May 2013 #9

We need to make sure they do. Calling into two talk shows as I type. nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #15

Very interesting but who are Alex and Leo?? kentuck May 2013 #8

A reporter -a good one- would only care about facts. randome May 2013 #12

nonsense, all reporting is a political. Reporters should attempt to reveal government secrets. limpyhobbler May 2013 #85

Not when you blow the cover of an operative brush May 2013 #90

Are you saying James Rosen "blew the cover of an operative"? limpyhobbler May 2013 #91

Read up on it. brush May 2013 #94

Did you just make that up? What "operative"? woo me with science May 2013 #106

What he did was totally legal. nt limpyhobbler May 2013 #128

It's undeniable proof that he was NOT acting as a "journalist." nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #13

Who would he be working for? kentuck May 2013 #16

This organization ProSense May 2013 #17

That is believable. kentuck May 2013 #18

If ProSense May 2013 #19

I would like to know? kentuck May 2013 #36

Journalists don't need to be "neutral" or any such thing. It's OK for Fox "News" to hate Obama. limpyhobbler May 2013 #87

K and R for the Cave people Kingofalldems May 2013 #10

K&R nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #11

Rosen is a special kind of stupid. randome May 2013 #14

This is ridiculous, woo me with science May 2013 #20

You know ProSense May 2013 #22

We are talking about government surveillance based on allegations of criminal conspiracy. woo me with science May 2013 #23

Speaking of ProSense May 2013 #24

Unreal. woo me with science May 2013 #25

Drivel ProSense May 2013 #26

ha! you got that one just squirming and kicking Whisp May 2013 #27

Well, ProSense May 2013 #30

No, the government *used* accusations of criminal conspiracy in order to *obtain* the warrant, woo me with science May 2013 #29

What ProSense May 2013 #32

There is no valid reasonable suspicion here. woo me with science May 2013 #33

Maybe, ProSense May 2013 #35

"..expose muddle-headed policy.."?? kentuck May 2013 #38

Are you ProSense May 2013 #40

I would rather take my chances with a muddled-headed press.... kentuck May 2013 #69

Sometimes ProSense May 2013 #72

So if one reporter had exposed it? kentuck May 2013 #76

Wait ProSense May 2013 #78

The statute involved here does cover that. However, the information must be SlimJimmy May 2013 #116

It wasn't okay to look but it was okay to report. Luminous Animal May 2013 #122

Again, we are talking about government surveillance based on accusations of criminal conspiracy, woo me with science May 2013 #39

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #41

There is nothing criminal about a journalist's soliciting information. Or receiving it. woo me with science May 2013 #44

So ProSense May 2013 #47

What facts? You haven't offered anything at all. woo me with science May 2013 #51

You want ProSense May 2013 #52

Exactly what part of the US Code you cited would apply in this case? The statute you are using SlimJimmy May 2013 #53

"He released information pertaining to the North Korean response to sanctions." ProSense May 2013 #55

What was provided to him had nothing to do with the statute you cited. That statute concerns the SlimJimmy May 2013 #59

Absurd. woo me with science May 2013 #54

Dismissive nonsense. ProSense May 2013 #58

Show me where this is illegal under the appropriate US Code. Obtaining classified information SlimJimmy May 2013 #60

Wait ProSense May 2013 #61

Did you read anything I wrote? SlimJimmy May 2013 #64

Well ProSense May 2013 #67

You have really missed the mark here. And your cut and paste reply tells me all I need to know. SlimJimmy May 2013 #75

An ProSense May 2013 #77

So the government misrepresented their intent to the court woo me with science May 2013 #79

Nonsense, and ProSense May 2013 #80

It is the necessary and usual step when accusing someone of a crime. The federal government SlimJimmy May 2013 #84

You know ProSense May 2013 #88

What is nonsense is *your* assertion that a search warrant is not issued against a targeted person SlimJimmy May 2013 #99

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #101

The warrant may be issued to a person or business, but the affidavit must show probable cause SlimJimmy May 2013 #107

You ProSense May 2013 #109

Yes they did, In the affidavit they named him as a co-conspirator and wanted his records SlimJimmy May 2013 #111

Do you ProSense May 2013 #114

Wow, the ignorance you are showing relating to the facts here is stunning. Is it really that hard SlimJimmy May 2013 #119

More obfuscation with a touch of disingenuous shock. n/t ProSense May 2013 #121

Excellent summary. woo me with science May 2013 #124

I was just as appalled when Nixon targeted the Pentagon Paper reporters. I remember SlimJimmy May 2013 #126

I would agree that it is not as cut and dried as the OP would suggest. kentuck May 2013 #42

The government had no justification to make the accusation they did woo me with science May 2013 #45

"Paranoia strikes deep. DevonRex May 2013 #81

Please pass that information on to Prosense. I'm getting tired of explaining it to her. (nt) SlimJimmy May 2013 #113

Bullshit! maxrandb May 2013 #43

There was no evidence or even suggestion of criminal behavior here. woo me with science May 2013 #46

Some folks seem to be of the opinion... kentuck May 2013 #49

Actually it's not illegal for a reporter to obtain classified information, except in very well SlimJimmy May 2013 #50

"Whoever is paying you for good PR might want to rethink that decision" Number23 May 2013 #56

Nailed that one. Bobbie Jo May 2013 #65

+ 1000 ^^^This!^^^ BlueCaliDem May 2013 #86

Sure, that's why the DOJ shopped a judge to sign the search warrant. SlimJimmy May 2013 #135

love ya, PS and I'll get my ass kicked but here goes: elehhhhna May 2013 #62

The problem ProSense May 2013 #63

I assume the OP is being ironic marshall May 2013 #28

As you can see above, the OP is embarrassingly and disturbingly serious, woo me with science May 2013 #31

Evidently ProSense May 2013 #34

I still think it is online street theatre marshall May 2013 #57

+100. Nothing but spin from the OP, as if that changes reality. Skip Intro May 2013 #68

Aren't ProSense May 2013 #70

Clearly Skip Intro May 2013 #71

When ProSense May 2013 #74

What Skip Intro May 2013 #82

No, what's ridiculous is that once again you side with Fox DevonRex May 2013 #73

Baseless government targeting of journalists is never hilarious. woo me with science May 2013 #83

But ProSense May 2013 #89

K & R Scurrilous May 2013 #37

It wouldn't surprise me Aerows May 2013 #48

k&r... spanone May 2013 #66

I wonder if you'll be so blase when it's a Republican WH going after reporters? Marr May 2013 #92

Again, ProSense May 2013 #95

You keep repeating this: woo me with science May 2013 #97

And ProSense May 2013 #98

You are repeating yourself in arguments woo me with science May 2013 #102

Why ProSense May 2013 #105

I'm still waiting for Prosense to excerpt the part of the applicable US Code that SlimJimmy May 2013 #100

+1 woo me with science May 2013 #103

I see ProSense May 2013 #104

No, I'm waiting for you to show me something in writing that you contend here repeatedly. SlimJimmy May 2013 #108

Hey, ProSense May 2013 #110

In other words, you can't provide the simple bit of information I requested that would prove SlimJimmy May 2013 #112

No, the "other words" are your desperate obfuscation. n/t ProSense May 2013 #115

Look, I've documented every contention I've made. It's all here in the thread. You, on the SlimJimmy May 2013 #117

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #118

All I've done is document facts. That you don't like that is not my problem. SlimJimmy May 2013 #120

You mean ProSense May 2013 #123

Said poster will not put up nor shut up. Facts are irrelevant. Skip Intro May 2013 #130

I understand. I've not only made my points, but documented them. All anyone has to do is read SlimJimmy May 2013 #132

Indeed. Skip Intro May 2013 #133

If it means anything, I did read the exchange-- and Marr May 2013 #136

Sometimes we have to put up with the smoke bombs in our attempt to educate. I appreciate SlimJimmy May 2013 #137

newsCORPSE ? limpyhobbler May 2013 #93

? ProSense May 2013 #96

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I guess. nt limpyhobbler May 2013 #127

LOL woo me with science May 2013 #129

To be fair, they are having a difficult week. limpyhobbler May 2013 #131

"I don't envy the job have having to defend the indefensible. " ProSense May 2013 #134

OK that was funny. limpyhobbler May 2013 #138

Kicking for ProSense May 2013 #139