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
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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fox learned about the sub...»Reply #53