[subego]

I find it nauseating Obama lacks either the desire or the stones to remove him. The FOX journalist is really the last straw.

I'm really pissed off.

[OAW]

Is this what you are referring to?

A rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe - The Washington Post

OAW

[subego]

Yes.

[OAW]

Gotcha. Assuming this Fox News reporter did in fact receive this classified information that would make his actions illegal would it not? Notwithstanding the fact that he is a reporter?

OAW

[subego]

My understanding is no, his actions weren't illegal.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is no, his actions weren't illegal.

Hmmm. Well that would be troubling indeed. I'm digging around myself now. It would appear the controversy is summed up like this ...

But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen - the journalist - committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law. Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]:

"Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator'. That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a 'covert communications plan' and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . . However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so."

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them."

Obama DOJ formally accuses journalist in leak case of committing crimes

So this Rosen guy is being accused of "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information as opposed to merely publishing it. If they pursue charges against him I certainly think that's going too far. If they merely used the search warrant to identify his source in order to plug the leak then that's more understandable ... though still pretty disturbing. And I suppose it should be so when we have to balance first amendment rights with national security concerns.

OAW

[subego]

I'd feel a touch more comfortable about the warrant if it wasn't justified by the claim Rosen was breaking the law.

[subego]

I should also throw in:

Busting medical marijuana clinics
Aaron Swartz
Crock-pots of mass destruction
Defending strip-searches for traffic violations
Fast and Furious (I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying it's an epic ****-up)

This is off the top of my head.

[subego]

"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security."

- Eric Holder

[Snow-i]

Sacking holder would be Obama admitting that there are warranted concerns about actions taken by his administration. This is something that he is not prepared to do. I believe the endgame is to carve out a new precedent regarding freedom of the press - one where you're free to say whatever you want so long as you subscribe to the system - the preferred ideology.

Between the Administration targeting unfriendly reporters to targeting unfriendly non-profits, a pattern of disregard for upholding the 1st and 4th amendments as the highest laws of the land seems to be emerging, and it seems to be emerging in the name of political benefit. It's truly frightening that some on here seek to defend the actions taken against all of us by using government resources to shape the political landscape.

Shameful, and exactly what I've been warning against for years.

Before someone chimes in and says "they all do it! look at the patriot act!". I agree completely and it's disgusting no matter which party you subscribe to. Degrading freedom of expression, press, and/or speech in any regard is the first step of a quick walk to tyranny. Over time, the boundaries get pushed further and further on the side of the ruling class.

If this type of behavior is not quickly and thoroughly dealt with by the people of the USA, i'm afraid its just a matter of time that we'll all be arguing about (insert issue here) via "fairness doctrine" talking points provided by the government for fear of IRS audit and/or judicial actions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Sacking holder would be Obama admitting that there are warranted concerns about actions taken by his administration.

As I was posting the due process quote, it occurred to me it's close to impossible for Obama not to share the same sentiment.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security."

- Eric Holder

In other words:

I am the law, and you will not have due process when it suits me and my handler(s).

[subego]

We don't have the legal standing to tap a citizen terrorist's phone without at least throwing it by a judge post facto.

Where the **** does he get off claiming we have the legal standing to vaporize them?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I find it nauseating Obama lacks either the desire or the stones to remove him. .

Don't worry. Eric Place Holder won't be around forever. Another 3.5 years max.

-t