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

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
89. Yep and as far as I'm concerned championing Fox is fucking blatantly rooting for
Tue May 28, 2013, 01:20 PM
May 2013

the other side. There is absolutely NO case to be made that Rosen was acting as a journalist. None. I don't give a rat's ass who signs his fucking paycheck. Even if it were the Times or WaPo, as soon as he said he wanted to influence State the game was over.

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 #89