Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

[The Rabbi]

Geezus. The only reasons I can think why you assholes are defending this is that you are ignorant as to what this means, or you really are in favor of a fascist state in America.

 

[The Rabbi]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

So....the warrent WAS illegal?

Illegal? Maybe not. In violation of everything the 1A represents? Definitely.

 

[Jarhead]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

So....the warrent WAS illegal?

it was based on "facts" that did not exist.

If the facts were accurate, then yes, it was legal.

The warrant was based on a VERY weak assumption of guilt of the reporter.....an assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up...

unless, of course, the AG believes that all investigative reporters are accomplices to crimes.,

He capitalized on a loophole in the law.

An AG should close those loopholes.....not capitlaize on them.

 

[Sallow]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

 

[Jarhead]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

exactly where did we agree to allow an AG to trump up phoney charges on an innocent individual?

 

[Sallow]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

So....the warrent WAS illegal?

it was based on "facts" that did not exist.

If the facts were accurate, then yes, it was legal.

The warrant was based on a VERY weak assumption of guilt of the reporter.....an assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up...

unless, of course, the AG believes that all investigative reporters are accomplices to crimes.,

He capitalized on a loophole in the law.

An AG should close those loopholes.....not capitlaize on them.

It was the last administration that CREATED those loopholes.

 

[Sallow]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

exactly where did we agree to allow an AG to trump up phoney charges on an innocent individual?

SEE: Patriot Act.

 

[g5000]

How quickly the fucking hypocritical little gerbils forget the recent past:

New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who met with Lewis Libby on July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Plame affair,[22] but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to confidential sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On June 27, 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari,[23] TIME Magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper, and Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury after receiving a waiver from his source. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigations.[24]
New York Times reporter Judith Miller served a civil contempt jail sentence from early July 2005 to September 29, 2005, for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

Miller was jailed on July 7, 2005 in Alexandria, Virginia. She was released on September 29, upon reaching an agreement with Fitzgerald to testify at a hearing scheduled on the morning of September 30, 2005.[25][26] Miller indicated that her source, unlike Cooper's, had not sufficiently waived confidentiality. She issued a statement at a press conference after her release, stating that her source, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, had released her from her promise of confidentiality, saying her source "voluntarily and personally released [her] from [her] promise of confidentiality".

Plame affair grand jury investigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jarhead]

So....the warrent WAS illegal?

it was based on "facts" that did not exist.

If the facts were accurate, then yes, it was legal.

The warrant was based on a VERY weak assumption of guilt of the reporter.....an assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up...

unless, of course, the AG believes that all investigative reporters are accomplices to crimes.,

He capitalized on a loophole in the law.

An AG should close those loopholes.....not capitlaize on them.

It was the last administration that CREATED those loopholes.

uh....no.

The loophole is there becuase NO ONE ever dreamed the possibility of the AG of the US making up completely false charges against someone.


LMAO.

You are so freaking pathetic.

 

[Jarhead]

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

exactly where did we agree to allow an AG to trump up phoney charges on an innocent individual?

SEE: Patriot Act.

lol...yep....I see it..."the Government is allowed to outright lie on an affidavit regarding the belief of guilt of an individual"

You are funny Sallow.

Pathetic, but funny.

 

[CaféAuLait]

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

exactly where did we agree to allow an AG to trump up phoney charges on an innocent individual?

SEE: Patriot Act.

Does the same act allow Holder to lie to congress?

Holder was grilled by the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee on the AP case last week, although he insisted he recused himself from the matter and that it was his deputy, James Cole, who approved those subpoenas. In the Fox News case, however, it’s now clear that Holder was directly involved.

Holder greenlit search warrant for Fox reporter?s emails ? MSNBC

 

[The Rabbi]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

1) Bush never did anything like that. Period. That isn't even debatable.
2) I thought Obama was there to end the failed policies of Bush.
3) If Obama is only doing what Bush did then isn't Obama every bit as bad as Bush?

 

[paulitician]

Check out this current President's use of the Espionage Act of 1917. It's unprecedented. It should be disturbing to all Americans.

This comes from some of his biggest worshippers...

The Big Chill: How Obama Is Operating in Unprecedented Secrecy -- While Attacking the Secret-Tellers

It's a particularly challenging time for American national security reporting, with the press and public increasingly in the dark about important defense, intelligence and counterterrorism issues.

The post-post-9/11 period finds the U.S. aggressively experimenting with two new highly disruptive forms of combat -- drone strikes and cyberattacks -- for which our leaders appear to be making up the rules, in secret, as they go along.

Troubling legal and moral issues left behind by the previous administration remain unresolved. Far from reversing the Bush-Cheney executive power grab, President Barack Obama is taking it to new extremes by unilaterally approving indefinite detention of foreign prisoners and covert targeted killings of terror suspects, even when they are American citizens.

There is little to none of the judicial and legislative oversight Obama had promised, so the executive branch's most controversial methods of violence and control remain solely in the hands of the president -- possibly about to be passed along to a leader with less restraint.

More than a decade after it started, we still have no clue how much the government is listening in on us or reading our email, despite the obvious Fourth Amendment issues.

And the government's response to this unprecedented secrecy is a war on leaks.

No Help From High Places...

Read More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-froomkin/obama-white-house-leaks_b_1973649.html

 

[Sallow]

He would authorize it.
It is simply atrocious. No, worse. It is a total disregard for the 1A and the purpose of the press in a free society. The warrant was drafted in disregard of law and department policy. It was meant to and has chilled press sources. If it stands it will be a very dangerous precedent.

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

1) Bush never did anything like that. Period. That isn't even debatable.
2) I thought Obama was there to end the failed policies of Bush.
3) If Obama is only doing what Bush did then isn't Obama every bit as bad as Bush?

The thing about your lies is that they are so easy to refute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12inquire.html?pagewanted=all

 

[RoadVirus]

Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

I guess Eric holder is going to investigate Eric Holder

And yet, he had no idea about this!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Was it illegal?

Last I checked one needed a Judge to sign those things.

Even with the Patriot Act?

If what he did was illegal, full steam ahead with investigations. BUT, if it is currently legal, can anyone explain why we are investigating LEGAL actions?

Holy Christ...and Sallow - really..thanking this post??
The premise of the law is "limited in scope" and must be something that is ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC.
This was NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS.
F*ck....HELLO???

 

[ScienceRocks]

exactly where did we agree to allow an AG to trump up phoney charges on an innocent individual?

SEE: Patriot Act.

Does the same act allow Holder to lie to congress?

Holder was grilled by the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee on the AP case last week, although he insisted he recused himself from the matter and that it was his deputy, James Cole, who approved those subpoenas. In the Fox News case, however, it’s now clear that Holder was directly involved.

Holder greenlit search warrant for Fox reporter?s emails ? MSNBC

Clinton lied to congress and was rightfully impeached. So no.

 

[The Rabbi]

You seem to, conveniently, forget, that most of you folks didn't care at all when this was being done under Bush.

You folks rejected strong whistle blower laws.

And you folks were the ones that supported the Patriot Act.

1) Bush never did anything like that. Period. That isn't even debatable.
2) I thought Obama was there to end the failed policies of Bush.
3) If Obama is only doing what Bush did then isn't Obama every bit as bad as Bush?

The thing about your lies is that they are so easy to refute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12inquire.html?pagewanted=all

If you think that was any kind of refutation then you're dumber than Frank thinks you are.

 

[CaféAuLait]

SEE: Patriot Act.

Does the same act allow Holder to lie to congress?

Holder was grilled by the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee on the AP case last week, although he insisted he recused himself from the matter and that it was his deputy, James Cole, who approved those subpoenas. In the Fox News case, however, it’s now clear that Holder was directly involved.

Holder greenlit search warrant for Fox reporter?s emails ? MSNBC

Clinton lied to congress and was rightfully impeached. So no.

and there is more...

James Rosen Emails Should Be Monitored Indefinitely, DOJ Argued

The Justice Department argued that Fox News reporter James Rosen's emails should be monitored for an indefinite period of time, even in the absence of being able to bring charges against him, according to court filings unearthed by The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.

The revelation demonstrates the vast power that the Justice Department used against the journalist, who drew attention for publishing an article on North Korea's nuclear plans. The DOJ request also adds another dimension to previous reports that the Justice Department tracked Rosen's telephone records and his movements in and out of the State Department and with his alleged source, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser.

James Rosen Emails Should Be Monitored Indefinitely, DOJ Argued

 

[OriginalShroom]

Holder has a lot to answer for here.

How Prosecutors Fought to Keep Rosen's Warrant Secret : The New Yorker

How Prosecutors Fought to Keep Rosen’s Warrant Secret

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.

The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.



E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”

He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.

The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.

According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”

The government, which accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the Kim case, cast a wide net in its search of Rosen’s e-mail. Among other things, the search warrant requested access to:


—“Records or information related to Stephen Kim’s or the Author’s knowledge of laws, regulations, rules and/or procedures prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of national defense or classified information.”

—“Any classified document, image, record, or information, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”

—“Any document, image, record, or information concerning the national defense, including but not limited to documents, maps, plans, diagrams, guides, manuals, and other Department of Defense, U.S. military, and/or weapons material, as well as sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”

—“Records or information related to the state of mind of any individuals seeking the disclosure or receipt of classified, intelligence and/or national defense information.”

In addition, the Justice Department searched the account for any Internet services Rosen may have accessed and records of “data transfer volume,” suggesting the government was looking for evidence that Rosen downloaded large quantities of potentially classified information.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.

Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.