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
Editorials & Other Articles
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]
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)48. The judges *did* object to the part of the affidavit that asked to hide it from the news
organization and reporter, and for continued (never ending) surveillance of his e-mail and phone lines. Clearly, you *still* haven't read the affidavit in support of the warrant or the motions that surrounded it. It took them three tries to get it hidden. That's what we call "judge shopping", and is really unbelievable considering the high bar set for the DOJ in these cases.
That you continue to support the DOJ in its assault against the first amendment is astounding to me. Were you this supportive of the DOJ when classified information was released multiple times by the New York Times? I don't notice any threads by you that asked for the reporters to be charged? Clearly they were attempting to damage the Bush administration with the leaks. You know, political/personal motives. What about your support of the DOJ when they went after the reporters in the Pentagon Papers case? Did you ask for the heads of reporters in any of these cases?
Funny that, I don't think you did.
The AG has a lot to answer for. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it sooner rather than later.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
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
= 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