See the note, (Reply #46) - Democratic Underground

In the discussion thread: Fox learned about the subpoena nearly three years ago (updated) [View all]

Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Mon May 27, 2013, 01:24 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

46. See the note,

No, it hasn't.

Not with anything significant, anyway. You are using the tactic of *announcing* an update as though there were something significant in it, when there isn't. You insult your audience by assuming that they will not actually read what you have put here, or read the thread I linked

...the note that say "updated," it means just that, whether or not you fucking like the information.

"This is merely another version of posting blue links to irrelevant articles or to articles that actually say the opposite of what you claim they say."

Wow, "blue links." I'm impressed by your intelligence. Clownish.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

92 replies	Author	Time	Post
Fox learned about the subpoena nearly three years ago (updated) [View all]	ProSense	May 2013	OP
Another well resourced thread from ProSense.	longship	May 2013	#1
yes	CatWoman	May 2013	#4
Thank you	ProSense	May 2013	#5
+1	Buzz Clik	May 2013	#76
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
I always laugh when stories use unnamed government sources...	Historic NY	May 2013	#6
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
No need to	ProSense	May 2013	#9
CONFIRMED: Obama government is waging an unprecedented, dangerous war on press freedom.	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#10
CONFIRMED:	ProSense	May 2013	#11
Fox lies all the time. That doesn't mean the government should be snoop-reading Fox's emails.	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#12
LOL!	ProSense	May 2013	#13
not what I heard. I heard the DOJ went to a magistrate and said Mr. Rosen might have conspired to	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#14
Don't	ProSense	May 2013	#15
Are you saying Mr. Rosen did something illegal?	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#16
You know,	ProSense	May 2013	#17
Mr. Rosen commited no crime. You keep implying he did something illegal. nt	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#18
Fox lied. n/t	ProSense	May 2013	#19
Yes. Rosen is an alleged criminal.	George Gently	May 2013	#20
Soliciting classified information from government employees is not a crime.	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#21
What	ProSense	May 2013	#22
I can't tell whether you are deliberately trying to mislead people, or just confused yourself.	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#23
Well, I can't tell if you're being obtuse. n/t	ProSense	May 2013	#24
You are free to offer your defense to the judge.	George Gently	May 2013	#25
You probably think it is illegal for a reporter to ask a government employee for classified info.	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#27
Indeed it is a crime.	George Gently	May 2013	#26
Oh really? Then why hasn't he been arrested?	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#28
With due regard to your "figuring" . . .	George Gently	May 2013	#29
There is no "crime of soliciting classified information". You just made that crime up. nt	limpyhobbler	May 2013	#30
You might want to explain that to the judge who issued the warrant.	George Gently	May 2013	#31
Yet the DOJ had to go judge shopping.	woo me with science	May 2013	#44
"Judge shopping"? Quoting Breitbart? Drudge? How low ya gonna sink here?	George Gently	May 2013	#92
In Jeff Goldblum voice Yes, yes, he just pulled it clean out of his ass	davidpdx	May 2013	#84
Do you have a cite for that? US Code? I had a TS clearance for many years and learned	dumbcat	May 2013	#75
It is a crime to solicit a crime.	George Gently	May 2013	#77
US Code?	dumbcat	May 2013	#79
I'm suspicious of you already. LOL! First the Dictionary . . .	George Gently	May 2013	#82
Thank you for that cite. But	dumbcat	May 2013	#85
And I lurked here a long time before registering at DU	dumbcat	May 2013	#86
Shame on you for repeating this baseless garbage.	woo me with science	May 2013	#32
What the fuck are you talking about?	ProSense	May 2013	#33
It's a good thing	ProSense	May 2013	#34
You are wrong. Period.	George Gently	May 2013	#35
Yes it is, and I expect Rosen to indicted any day now, any time now ... pretty soon ...	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#38
See # 29.	George Gently	May 2013	#40
Sure, they always accuse reporters of being co-conspitators in order to obtain search warrants	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#41
Well,	ProSense	May 2013	#42
The judges did object to the part of the affidavit that asked to hide it from the news	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#48
And	ProSense	May 2013	#50
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
Oh	ProSense	May 2013	#49
Absolutely wrong. The judges refused the no notice TWICE. They had to go to a third judge to	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#51
Hmmm?	ProSense	May 2013	#53
No, seriously. I wanted the rest of DU to be able to read and judge for themselves who offered	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#55
.	ProSense	May 2013	#56
Great response. Exactly what I expected, and you didn't disappoint.	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#57
Psst!	ProSense	May 2013	#58
Thanks. We do want them to read our exchange and not others.	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#62
You have been bamboozled ---- hook, line and sinker.	George Gently	May 2013	#52
You are so mis-informed it is scary. Any delay in notification causes harm to the ideal	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#54
Put down those water buckets.	George Gently	May 2013	#59
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 no such thing. Why keep repeating the lie?	George Gently	May 2013	#61
Wrong, but keep saying it and it might become true.	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#63
You are confusing the law and the DOJ Rules.	George Gently	May 2013	#64
DOJ Rules require quite a bit in reference to news media. But you already knew that, right?	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#65
Now you are confusing a search warrant with a subpoena.	George Gently	May 2013	#66
No, it's you that are confused. A subpoena was issued for his phone records subsequent to the	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#69
Not to the search warrant. You really, really aren't getting this.	George Gently	May 2013	#70
Wow, your ignorance of facts is stunning. Even in the face of evidence to the	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#71
So ya got nothin'? Shocker. And ya oughtta be ashamed of yourself, btw.	George Gently	May 2013	#72
I already showed that a subpoena was issued for his phone records subsequent to the approval	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#73
You don't comprehend that it makes no difference. You have so conflated	George Gently	May 2013	#74
That you continue to evade the fact that a subpoena was issued for his phone records subsequent	SlimJimmy	May 2013	#78
The OP has been updated.	ProSense	May 2013	#36
No, it hasn't.	woo me with science	May 2013	#43
See the note,	ProSense	May 2013	#46
Hmmm...	ProSense	May 2013	#37
Thanks	ProSense	May 2013	#39
Shame goes to those who defend Fox as journalism to begin with,	DevonRex	May 2013	#67
+1	uponit7771	May 2013	#83
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
Agreed, and very well put.	emulatorloo	May 2013	#91
^^^ this ^^^	Bobbie Jo	May 2013	#90
QFT	ucrdem	May 2013	#68
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
ProSense thank you for keeping on top of this!	hrmjustin	May 2013	#81

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.