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
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)34. It's a good thing
"Don't allow this garbage to stand. It reflects poorly on all of us."
Shame on you for repeating this baseless garbage.
You have done this now repeatedly on this important issue. You cannot defend an argument in one thread, so you simply start a new one and repeat your nonsense where it has not been exposed.
I strongly recommend that all read through the below linked thread carefully, and especially the lengthy subthread (started in the second link), to see how absolutely vacant these claims by Prosense are, and how she is thoroughly unable to defend her argument when called to do so on legal grounds.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356#post20
We are Democrats. The corporate-authoritarian propaganda is thick at DU, but I believe that the vast majority of us still cherish the fundamental freedoms and civil protections on which our society was built, and do not excuse assaults on them by either party. This initial thread by Prosense was an embarrassment to DU, from the very beginning when she brazenly argues in favor of targeting journalists based on the political leanings of their newspapers, to the end where she makes absurd claims about the law that, as shown in the links above, she is utterly unable to defend.
Don't allow this garbage to stand. It reflects poorly on all of us. Challenge the shameless partisan spin and insist on integrity and our party's defense of our fundamental values and civil protections.
You have done this now repeatedly on this important issue. You cannot defend an argument in one thread, so you simply start a new one and repeat your nonsense where it has not been exposed.
I strongly recommend that all read through the below linked thread carefully, and especially the lengthy subthread (started in the second link), to see how absolutely vacant these claims by Prosense are, and how she is thoroughly unable to defend her argument when called to do so on legal grounds.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356#post20
We are Democrats. The corporate-authoritarian propaganda is thick at DU, but I believe that the vast majority of us still cherish the fundamental freedoms and civil protections on which our society was built, and do not excuse assaults on them by either party. This initial thread by Prosense was an embarrassment to DU, from the very beginning when she brazenly argues in favor of targeting journalists based on the political leanings of their newspapers, to the end where she makes absurd claims about the law that, as shown in the links above, she is utterly unable to defend.
Don't allow this garbage to stand. It reflects poorly on all of us. Challenge the shameless partisan spin and insist on integrity and our party's defense of our fundamental values and civil protections.
...that there are an equal number of clowns here on DU.
At Sun May 26, 2013, 08:05 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Shame on you for repeating this baseless garbage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2906279
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
YOUR COMMENTS:
No comments added by alerter
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun May 26, 2013, 08:09 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Argue the facts and keep personalities out of it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If the person alerting can't give a reason for the alert, then don't alert at all. I vote to allow. This time.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: First of all if you are going to alert make a comment as to why you are alerting. If you don't like the post challenge it but it is not hide worthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This isn't a call out since it is in response to pro sense and it otherwise only characterizes her post.
Thank you.
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