FBI targets FOX news chief

BenBurch said:
Well, you know, if he keeps a low profile and medical science keeps advancing, he might have a shot after Clinton. Because he's not his brother and is by no means stupid.
Click to expand...

Jesus. Whatever their merits I'd like to see the Dems pass over Clinton and the Reps pass over Jeb Bush just so it doesn't look quite so much like a nascent aristocracy.
 
So how did they get this warrant? Seriously, what is their evidence?
 
tyr_13 said:
So how did they get this warrant? Seriously, what is their evidence?
Click to expand...
Apparently it was just a ruse to get around the Privacy Protection Act, or we'd have seen charges filed.

And this is hilarious when it's done to a news organization we dislike, because it could never be used against ones we do like. :boggled:
 
Unfortunately, the Bush administration desensitized a lot of people to violence against the Constitution.

Also, I should say that Ben has been wholly consistent on this matter, as I recall he wanted maximum punishment for Julian Assange.

One of the more remarkable things about the Obama administration has been the way it's cracked down on leaks. Republicans tend to be much better at maintaining that kind of discipline, but Ron Suskind's exposes have not been nearly as revelatory this time around.
 
WildCat said:
So why hasn't the reporter been charged? The government sad he had committed a crime to get around the Privacy Protection Act, which otherwise forbids them from going after reporter's notes and such.
Click to expand...

Is that how it works? Every search warrant leads to charges otherwise abuse of power?

Highly doubt this would be precedent setting if it turns out that the search warrant did not turn up what they were looking to find.

Do you intend on calling foul on every prior warrant ever issued that did not lead to charges?
 
Cain said:
Unfortunately, the Bush administration desensitized a lot of people to violence against the Constitution.

Also, I should say that Ben has been wholly consistent on this matter, as I recall he wanted maximum punishment for Julian Assange.

One of the more remarkable things about the Obama administration has been the way it's cracked down on leaks. Republicans tend to be much better at maintaining that kind of discipline, but Ron Suskind's exposes have not been nearly as revelatory this time around.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for this. It's Bush's fault. It's always Bush's fault. Don't you conservatives get it! :rolleyes:
 
DDWW said:
I was waiting for this. It's Bush's fault. It's always Bush's fault. Don't you conservatives get it! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And in your eagerness to pounce on a comment you were just waiting for, you needlessly made yourself look foolish. I'm not saying it's Bush's fault. I'm saying part of the reason it's not going to elicit much of a response is because... we've already been down this road. Others have already pointed out selective right-wing outrage over expanding the national security state. Still, Obama's worst crimes are continuing policies of the previous administration, but I know, I know, BENGHAZI!!
 
Cain said:
(snip) Also, I should say that Ben has been wholly consistent on this matter, as I recall he wanted maximum punishment for Julian Assange. (snip)
Click to expand...


I think a better comparison would be this case, as it involved reporters at the left-leaning NYT acquiring sensitive information from government officials, then reporting it.

In fairness, I remember conservative outrage over that incident, with the word "traitors" being thrown about.

The Assange issue has its differences, not the least of which is that he is a hostile foreign entity.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Do you recall the government going after, say, the New York Times reporters covering the story?
Click to expand...


Possibly. But I'm not so enthralled by the subject that I feel like doing a Google check on it at the moment. I do recall Mr. Assange getting a lot of hate for publishing the various materials.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the funky link, but here's what Republicans were saying about the New York Times...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-calls-times-banking-leak-disgraceful#.UZzdW4pDtMl

The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper.

"We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.
Click to expand...

What changed between then and now?
 
Unabogie said:
What changed between then and now?
Click to expand...
Bush didn't actually prosecute, nor did his administration get search warrants for the reporters personal communications.

Obama did the latter, and threatened the former.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fbi-reporter-20130521,0,661230.story

"The FBI obtained a sealed search warrant to read a Fox News reporter's personal emails from two days in 2010 after arguing there was probable cause he had violated espionage laws by soliciting classified information from a government official, court papers show.
The case marks the first time the government has gone to court to portray news gathering as espionage, and Fox News officials and 1st Amendment advocates reacted angrily Monday after the secret warrant was reported by the Washington Post."


The defense of this should be interesting.
Click to expand...

The defense of this was n the very article you linked to,

A federal statute, the Privacy Protection Act, normally bars the government from using a search warrant to seize a reporter's notes or communications as part of a broader criminal investigation. But the law allows an exception if the reporter is specifically accused of committing a crime. "There is probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation of [the Espionage Act] as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator," FBI Agent Reginald B. Reyes wrote in a May 28, 2010, application for a search warrant. "Because of the reporter's own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by the warrant."
Click to expand...

It's important to note, also in the very article you linked to, that the reporter has NOT been charged with a crime but that the government official he is is accused of coercing has in fact been charged and is awaiting trial,

In an affidavit, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate that the reporter had committed a crime when he asked a State Department security contractor, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, to share secret material about North Korea in June 2009.

The affidavit did not name the reporter, but Fox News identified him as its chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen. He was not charged, but Kim was indicted on espionage charges in August 2010 and is awaiting trial. He has denied leaking classified information.
Click to expand...

So in the course of investigating a case of espionage the FBI looked at 2 days worth of emails with full judicial approval. Unusual? Yes. It was an unusual situation.
 
WildCat said:
No, it's not false. That was a grand jury subpoena to testify, not the action of an agency controlled by the executive branch. And it was not a search of the reporter's emails and other communication records.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah. Whatever ways you need to split those hairs to keep that cognitive dissonance in check. Those of us in the reality based community see this right-wing poutrage for what it is. I actually am against this. I do not think the government should be acting this way and I think that when government claiming something a "secret" should be highly scrutinized and treated with extreme skepticism.

Like I said, how dare a black democrat prevent leaks, that is a job for white people. You guys haven't shown that to be in error.
 
Am I the only one that read the whole article? What's the problem?

The FBI did not want to alert an espionage suspect(s) that they were investigating them as it could blow the whole case wide open. One of those suspects was a reporter, as espionage is not covered by the constitution his status as a reporter is secondary to his involvement in suspected espionage. The FBI presented their case to a judge who issued a legal order to covertly access the email account of a citizen being investigated for espionage. The information gathered has resulted in the prosecution of one party in those emails for the very crime that was suspected, espionage.

Espionage is spying and is a crime the DOJ takes rather seriously. That the reporter was with FOX news has not been shown to be of any influence on the investigation. There is no reason to think a MSNBC reporter or CNN reporter would be treated any different.

So no crime committed by the DOJ, no evidence of any bias, fully legal investigation with necessary orders issued by a judge, and the suspected criminal is being prosecuted for the suspected crime. What's the big deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom