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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Fox learned about the subpoena nearly three years ago (updated) [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)24. Well, I can't tell if you're being obtuse. n/t
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
92 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You mean to say that Fox learned of something recently? Ha ha ha!! I doubt it.
Major Hogwash
May 2013
#2
Of course it's delayed-timing outrage. They were timing their outrage for ScandalMania™
JaneyVee
May 2013
#3
Shouldn't that be "FOX learned about the search warrant nearly three years ago"?
George Gently
May 2013
#7
Apology. CNN is reporting that FOX recently learned about the search warrant
George Gently
May 2013
#8
CONFIRMED: Obama government is waging an unprecedented, dangerous war on press freedom.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#10
Fox lies all the time. That doesn't mean the government should be snoop-reading Fox's emails.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#12
not what I heard. I heard the DOJ went to a magistrate and said Mr. Rosen might have conspired to
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#14
Mr. Rosen commited no crime. You keep implying he did something illegal. nt
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#18
Soliciting classified information from government employees is not a crime.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#21
I can't tell whether you are deliberately trying to mislead people, or just confused yourself.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#23
You probably think it is illegal for a reporter to ask a government employee for classified info.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#27
There is no "crime of soliciting classified information". You just made that crime up. nt
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#30
Do you have a cite for that? US Code? I had a TS clearance for many years and learned
dumbcat
May 2013
#75
Yes it is, and I expect Rosen to indicted any day now, any time now ... pretty soon ...
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#38
Sure, they always accuse reporters of being co-conspitators in order to obtain search warrants
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#41
The judges *did* object to the part of the affidavit that asked to hide it from the news
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#48
LOL! Isn't the actual POINT that they don't "always accuse reporters of being co-conspirators . . .
George Gently
May 2013
#45
New flash for you. DOJ rules *require* it in the case of reporters and news organizations.
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#47
Absolutely wrong. The judges refused the *no notice* TWICE. They had to go to a third judge to
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#51
No, seriously. I wanted the rest of DU to be able to read and judge for themselves who offered
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#55
You are so mis-informed it is scary. *Any* delay in notification causes harm to the ideal
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#54
DOJ rules *require* it in the case of a news organization or reporter. What part of this don't you
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#60
DOJ Rules require quite a bit in reference to news media. But you already knew that, right?
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#65
No, it's you that are confused. A subpoena *was* issued for his phone records subsequent to the
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#69
Wow, your ignorance of facts is stunning. Even in the face of evidence to the
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#71
I already showed that a subpoena was issued for his phone records subsequent to the approval
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#73
That you continue to evade the fact that a subpoena *was* issued for his phone records subsequent
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#78
There are opportunists here who will champion FOX, repeat GOP talking points
emulatorloo
May 2013
#88
Yep and as far as I'm concerned championing Fox is fucking blatantly rooting for
DevonRex
May 2013
#89
THANK YOU VERY MUCH Prosense for your FACT BASED analysis. What detractors come back with is opinion
uponit7771
May 2013
#80
Have we been reading the same thread? Show me where I have *not* documented what I've been
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#87