Fox learned about the subpoena nearly three years ago (updated)

[ProSense]

17. You know,

"Are you saying Mr. Rosen did something illegal?"

...I get that you're trying to shift focus from the point of the OP, which is that Fox lied, in order to talk in circles. So instead of responding to yet another red herring, I'll post the gist of my previous responses to similar obfuscation:

The insistence that there was no justification is a red-herring. You refuse to accept the facts or cannot explain why the courts issued the warrant, but continue 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.

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

Rosen 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

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.

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"

The appropriate laws are cited in the OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022902690