General Discussion

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)

108. Check out why he wanted the info. To influence the State Department.

Reply to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #107)

Wed May 29, 2013, 11:18 PM

May 2013

Not acting as a journalist there. Nope. And wrote a story revealing the CIA had a source in North Korea re its nuclear program. Funny how these RW operatives just love to out CIA sources. Or don't you find that offensive anymore? Is it because Obama is president now?

If Judy Miller had been investigated the way she damned well should have been for outing Plame, and it had led to Dick fucking Cheney, would you have cried tears for him? Or her? The willing accomplice to the Iraq War invasion, outing a CIA agent and god knows what else? Everybody was pissed off that nothing happened. The investigation was a sham and so was the trial.

But investigate what the RW is doing TODAY and Obama's evil, Holder's evil. It's the most illogical stupid fucking thing I've ever seen. But go ahead and pretend the NYT is golden. Go ahead and pretend Fox is great and that Rosen was acting as a journalist. It's fucking hilarious.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New York Times Won't Attend Off-The-Record Eric Holder Meeting - NYT [View all] WillyT May 2013 OP

I'm proud of this administration! MannyGoldstein May 2013 #1

:evilgrin: WillyT May 2013 #3

...... madfloridian May 2013 #8

And many here don't get it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #16

Huzzah for our side Manny! Safetykitten May 2013 #63

Posturing ProSense May 2013 #2

Yeah That Damned NYT And WaPo... The Pentagon Papers... The Watergate Scandal... WillyT May 2013 #12

Two words: ProSense May 2013 #15

I Do Not Stand With These, Or Any, Media 100% Of The Time, But... WillyT May 2013 #21

And yet the 4th estate and the 1st amendment can and will continue to function as always. phleshdef May 2013 #55

Sorry... I Disagree... Even Nixon Was Talked Down From This... WillyT May 2013 #85

The government can ALWAYS go after reporters if there is evidence they committed a crime. randome May 2013 #88

Fuck Nixon. Nixon is a whole different story. And who is "going after" reporters? phleshdef May 2013 #90

So... Give Us Your Opinion Of Daniel Ellsberg... WillyT May 2013 #92

I pretty much already did. phleshdef May 2013 #95

You Are A Good Amerikan... Have A Pat On The Back... WillyT May 2013 #96

My position is legally, ethically and morally sound. phleshdef May 2013 #97

Good for you. You have thought things through an unbiased mind. asjr May 2013 #129

"Thanks to the NYT reporting nearly 1 million people were killed" MotherPetrie May 2013 #29

oh for fuck's sake. your defense shit is just sad and pathetic. cali May 2013 #31

Tough fucking shit ProSense May 2013 #36

Calm Down... WillyT May 2013 #41

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #47

Great. Good to know towing that barge up the river denial does not exhaust you. Safetykitten May 2013 #60

Oh look ProSense May 2013 #81

The defense as presented is fairly ironclad and irrefutable. phleshdef May 2013 #57

Wha... ?? WillyT May 2013 #65

I'd like to see that "proof". If they could wave it at a reporter, they certainly could allow the Luminous Animal May 2013 #17

Here is the ProSense May 2013 #23

I don't read your self-referential blue links. Too much propaganda to slog through. Luminous Animal May 2013 #25

Cop out. You read my comments, though. ProSense May 2013 #39

Yes. I will read your original posts and your comments. I won't click on your blue links that link Luminous Animal May 2013 #51

In all fairness, hughee99 May 2013 #86

:) Luminous Animal May 2013 #105

there are millions of off the record meetings in the history of the US. NY Times are hypocrites graham4anything May 2013 #4

Go get 'em, tiger! MannyGoldstein May 2013 #6

Just another member of the millionaire press corps One of the 99 May 2013 #5

I guess the first does not apply to you then nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #13

No I'm an average person One of the 99 May 2013 #111

Phew, the first still applies to you then nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #113

Give me a break One of the 99 May 2013 #115

I will give you a break nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #116

No I don't think the millionaire press corp should have right above the average citizen. One of the 99 May 2013 #119

They don't, that is the point that you are missing by more than nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #121

You're the one missing the point. One of the 99 May 2013 #124

Given that most reporters are all but millionaires nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #126

A skewed view of rights One of the 99 May 2013 #128

You keep saying what is not being written at all nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #131

I keep saying it One of the 99 May 2013 #134

And what rights and privileges would those be? Luminous Animal May 2013 #19

To lie about Al Gore One of the 99 May 2013 #112

What exactly did the AP do? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #117

The didn't expose the lies One of the 99 May 2013 #118

I did before, in another post nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #122

Stalinist??? One of the 99 May 2013 #125

Actually I do nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #127

And when have I advocated taking control of the press? One of the 99 May 2013 #130

Coming from someone repeating what is not being said that is all kinds of funny nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #132

Please it is exactly how they are acting. One of the 99 May 2013 #135

Fuck the NYT, they made sure GWB got elected in 2004! Rex May 2013 #7

And it's more than Judith Miller ProSense May 2013 #9

So why didn't Obama/Holder's DOJ prosecute those responsible for the torture? MotherPetrie May 2013 #35

The Times endorsed John Kerry. Luminous Animal May 2013 #10

"By the time the Swift Boat story had played out... ProSense May 2013 #33

how? they endorsed kerry and criticized bush multiple times La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #20

fuck lying piles of steaming dogshit cali May 2013 #34

They held back on the warrantless wiretapping story CJCRANE May 2013 #82

Fuck 'em Cali_Democrat May 2013 #11

If this happened under bush I am sure you nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #14

yeah. its amazing how malleable principles can be La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #22

Yup, especially ProSense May 2013 #26

Yeah, it is. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #30

Exactly! n/t ProSense May 2013 #18

There are quite a few organizations who are fighting back on these "legal" abuses concocted by Bush Luminous Animal May 2013 #24

What about ProSense May 2013 #28

What? Stories don't just come to reporters in the middle of the night? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #32

Title 18, United States Code Section 793(d) Cali_Democrat May 2013 #38

My dear this is silly at this point nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #40

The law is silly? Cali_Democrat May 2013 #44

So perhaps we need to have all stories approved by the state? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #45

Rosen broke the law prior to publication of the story Cali_Democrat May 2013 #50

Aren't we the civil libertarians today...NOT!!! nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #52

Jesus Christ. Rosen didn't do what any investigative reporters do. Cultivate sources, squeeze info, Luminous Animal May 2013 #61

Jesus Christ. What part of section 793(d) do you not understand? Cali_Democrat May 2013 #66

It looks like you agree with Nixon that The New York Times should have been prosecuted for the Luminous Animal May 2013 #71

793(e) is not 793(d) Cali_Democrat May 2013 #72

You know, judges are rolling over for these secret warrents and it has got to stop. Luminous Animal May 2013 #98

Also, Cali_Democrat May 2013 #79

It has been well-established that reporters are not breaking the law when they publish classified Luminous Animal May 2013 #53

"It has been well-established that" Cali_Democrat May 2013 #56

No. Nixon tried to make it a crime to solicit and publish. He failed. And nowhere in your linked Luminous Animal May 2013 #67

The law does not distinguish between reporters and other people Cali_Democrat May 2013 #68

I don't see where it says "solicit" in that. BlueCheese May 2013 #80

All this unpleasantness could be avoided if the press simply learned not to upset the Government. Nye Bevan May 2013 #27

LOL !!! ... + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT May 2013 #37

Good for them. nt Honeycombe8 May 2013 #42

UPDATE: Associated Press, Huffington Post will NOT attend if "off the record" either. nt Poll_Blind May 2013 #43

That should give a message to the DOJ nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #46

Meh. Huffpo is just another RW rag, amiright? n/t cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #49

Fuck the NYT. Stenographers for GWB and his Iraq War. Now pretending DevonRex May 2013 #48

Yeah. Shut 'em down. Seize their assets. Nye Bevan May 2013 #73

They were a mouthpiece newspaper for Bush. Funny how DevonRex May 2013 #104

Too funny. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #107

Check out why he wanted the info. To influence the State Department. DevonRex May 2013 #108

People seem to not care at all about that. Rex May 2013 #109

Thank goodness DevonRex May 2013 #110

Now this is stupid. The press does not see that is is good for us? For them? Safetykitten May 2013 #54

And It Is Fascinating How Many So-Called Democrats, Progressives, And Liberals... Support This... WillyT May 2013 #62

OUTRAGE! Oh...us....nevermind. Safetykitten May 2013 #64

Some of us ProSense May 2013 #70

And I Too Hate This... But... As Long As The Press... Considers Fox To Be A Part Of The Press... WillyT May 2013 #74

And ProSense May 2013 #77

Don't they realize it's our team that's in office right now? BlueCheese May 2013 #58

Oh They Realize It... They Just Don't Want To Acknowledge It At All... WillyT May 2013 #76

The 'all or nothing' posts on this are absurd. It seems to some that the Press will never be wrong. randome May 2013 #59

I know. People reflexively taking the side of the press against the Government is so wrong. Nye Bevan May 2013 #78

Reflexively taking anyone's side is wrong. The facts should speak for themselves. randome May 2013 #83

Have NO IDEA what to make of this....I don't see NYT's really defying any President KoKo May 2013 #69

dunno who i have more contempt for, the DOJ or the media whores 0rganism May 2013 #75

lol's true...they must be able to dig up some Toady...so they can trash them later. KoKo May 2013 #84

Personally I think Holder is dead meat LittleBlue May 2013 #87

What is the point in talking to the press "off the record?" Skip Intro May 2013 #89

Maybe because there is an actual national security issue at stake? Just speculating. randome May 2013 #91

"Okay guys... here's the deal (shhhhh you can't tell anyone We told you this, ESPECIALLY AMERICANS!) cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #94

You don't think reporters get off-the-record meetings all the time? randome May 2013 #100

I'm not so naive as to think reporters don't get off-the-record meetings. Bureau Chiefs? En masse? cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #106

Actually, many reporters do not use "off-the-record" protection, some editors ask their newsrooms Brickbat May 2013 #120

Agreed.. kentuck May 2013 #103

But That's The Actual Question And Confusion... WillyT May 2013 #99

I know, it's infuriating to not tell the public what secrets you are trying to keep. randome May 2013 #102

Just to give some background context for better understanding... Blue_Tires May 2013 #114

The shit's getting deep... kentuck May 2013 #93

And Yet... If He HAD Gone After The Bankers And Wall Street... He'd Have Majority Support... WillyT May 2013 #101

Good for the NYT! Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #123

Can someone help a layman out here shawn703 May 2013 #133

At the high level you are talking off nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #136

Then I expect them to stay silent when they have future questions... Pragdem May 2013 #137