FACT: Law did not require Rosen be given notice

[OohPooPahDoo]

Fact if this was done under Bush or any Republican President...

Are you telling me that the Bush DOJ never appealed any decisions it didn't agree with? Really?

... the OP would not be trying no matter how pathetically to defend the action.

Does whether or not I would defend a hypothetical action in your hypothetical reality you've envisioned actually change what the law says in reality?

BTW, Bush's transgressions involved warrantless wiretaps. Did you forget?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Funny how the radical left suddenly becomes fluent in federal law and then they resort to the "F" word instead of defending their position. Soros blogs ain't gonna bail you out. Once a low-information democrat, always a low information democrat.

oh, wow. I didn't think of it from that angle. The right has accused the DOJ of violating the law - and to defend that accusation by referencing the law - well that's just bullshit man! Its bullshit!

 

[blackhawk]

Fact if this was done under Bush or any Republican President...

Are you telling me that the Bush DOJ never appealed any decisions it didn't agree with? Really?

... the OP would not be trying no matter how pathetically to defend the action.

Does whether or not I would defend a hypothetical action in your hypothetical reality you've envisioned actually change what the law says in reality?

Did the Bush administration ever do to any reporter what was done to the AP and Rosen? It is already been proven many times over in this thread that what you posted is not the reality of the law. Your simply trying to defend a indefensible action by a administration you support that you would not defend otherwise if you want to lie to yourself fine but don't waste my time lying to me about it.

 

[whitehall]

Funny how the radical left suddenly becomes fluent in federal law and then they resort to the "F" word instead of defending their position. Soros blogs ain't gonna bail you out. Once a low-information democrat, always a low information democrat.

oh, wow. I didn't think of it from that angle. The right has accused the DOJ of violating the law - and to defend that accusation by referencing the law - well that's just bullshit man! Its bullshit!

The right hasn't officially accused the DOJ of violating the law...yet.... President Hussein calls it a bad thing and he is backing away from it and the A.G says he wasn't involved when documentation says he he was. The point is that the government never attacks the media in this way and even Nixon didn't resort to strategy like this. Hussein is in a bind and a bunch of Huffington/Soros text ain't going to bail him out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The DOJ does not need to provide notice to Rosen for his emails if the emails are seized from the ISP and if they obtain a warrant.


18 U.S.C. 2703(b)(1)

(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.—
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
(A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

...and the rules of procedure only require they leave notice with the ISP, since the property was seized from the ISP's premises and not Rosen's premises:

(C) Receipt. The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.

Note the word "or" - they may choose to notify Rosen OR the ISP.


Rule 41. Search and Seizure | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

So as you see, Chief Judge Lamberth was correct in his overruling of lower magistrates and granting the warrant. Its evident in the plain language of the law.

But facts don't matter, do they righties?

Fact.

The law requires that the administrator of the email server be given notice.

They weren't.

Fact.

The law requires judges to apply an extra level of scrutiny to requests for reporters work product. The appellate judge refused to do this, and simply accepted the government's unsupported word that they needed the details.

He was wrong.

End of factual defense of the DoJ and your attempt to blame Bush.

 

[Darkwind]

So, the justification for abusive government continues.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Fact if this was done under Bush or any Republican President...

Are you telling me that the Bush DOJ never appealed any decisions it didn't agree with? Really?

... the OP would not be trying no matter how pathetically to defend the action.

Does whether or not I would defend a hypothetical action in your hypothetical reality you've envisioned actually change what the law says in reality?

Did the Bush administration ever do to any reporter what was done to the AP and Rosen?

So you're saying its OK to appeal a warrant application for non-reporters, but since reporters are above the law, its not OK to appeal a warrant application for them?

It is already been proven many times over in this thread that what you posted is not the reality of the law.

I actually posted the literal law itself. I fail to how the literal law itself is not the "reality of the law". I guess the "reality of the law" is defined by FOX News?

Your simply trying to defend a indefensible action by a administration you support that you would not defend otherwise if you want to lie to yourself fine but don't waste my time lying to me about it.

My bad. I thought this discussion was about the DOJ. Turns out its really about me.

BTW - I don't recall you mentioning this -ever - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21fbi.html Why? FOX News didn't tell you to?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Are you telling me that the Bush DOJ never appealed any decisions it didn't agree with? Really?
Does whether or not I would defend a hypothetical action in your hypothetical reality you've envisioned actually change what the law says in reality?

Did the Bush administration ever do to any reporter what was done to the AP and Rosen?

So you're saying its OK to appeal a warrant application for non-reporters, but since reporters are above the law, its not OK to appeal a warrant application for them?

It is already been proven many times over in this thread that what you posted is not the reality of the law.

I actually posted the literal law itself. I fail to how the literal law itself is not the "reality of the law". I guess the "reality of the law" is defined by FOX News?

Your simply trying to defend a indefensible action by a administration you support that you would not defend otherwise if you want to lie to yourself fine but don't waste my time lying to me about it.

My bad. I thought this discussion was about the DOJ. Turns out its really about me.

BTW - I don't recall you mentioning this -ever - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21fbi.html Why? FOX News didn't tell you to?

I responded earlier to that and said it was wrong then AND its wrong now. But for you, it was wrong back then and OK now. We know your game.

 

[Oddball]

Sweet...Now the socialist liberoidals are hiding behind USAPATRIOT Act.

So much for those assholes being the champions of civil liberties.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did the Bush administration ever do to any reporter what was done to the AP and Rosen?

So you're saying its OK to appeal a warrant application for non-reporters, but since reporters are above the law, its not OK to appeal a warrant application for them?


I actually posted the literal law itself. I fail to how the literal law itself is not the "reality of the law". I guess the "reality of the law" is defined by FOX News?

Your simply trying to defend a indefensible action by a administration you support that you would not defend otherwise if you want to lie to yourself fine but don't waste my time lying to me about it.

My bad. I thought this discussion was about the DOJ. Turns out its really about me.

BTW - I don't recall you mentioning this -ever - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21fbi.html Why? FOX News didn't tell you to?

I responded earlier to that and said it was wrong then AND its wrong now. But for you, it was wrong back then and OK now. We know your game.

Great! Lets see your post ~January 2010 when the story became public confirming you condemned it then!

 

[PredFan]

Apparently people should seek the council of PooPoo here and save the country a lot of time and money because he kbnows more about the law than anyone else in washington.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So you're saying its OK to appeal a warrant application for non-reporters, but since reporters are above the law, its not OK to appeal a warrant application for them?


I actually posted the literal law itself. I fail to how the literal law itself is not the "reality of the law". I guess the "reality of the law" is defined by FOX News?

My bad. I thought this discussion was about the DOJ. Turns out its really about me.

BTW - I don't recall you mentioning this -ever - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21fbi.html Why? FOX News didn't tell you to?

I responded earlier to that and said it was wrong then AND its wrong now. But for you, it was wrong back then and OK now. We know your game.

Great! Lets see your post ~January 2010 when the story became public confirming you condemned it then!

Gonzales was doing this to the nyt back in 2006. This was known before 2010. It was wrong then and wrong now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I responded earlier to that and said it was wrong then AND its wrong now. But for you, it was wrong back then and OK now. We know your game.

Great! Lets see your post ~January 2010 when the story became public confirming you condemned it then!

Gonzales was doing this to the nyt back in 2006. This was known before 2010. It was wrong then and wrong now.

Awesome! Link to your earliest post condemning it please!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Great! Lets see your post ~January 2010 when the story became public confirming you condemned it then!

Gonzales was doing this to the nyt back in 2006. This was known before 2010. It was wrong then and wrong now.

Awesome! Link to your earliest post condemning it please!

I don't need a post stating anything from the past. It was wrong then and wrong now. You have no problem with the govt spying and wiretapping reporters.....as long as O is in charge. You haven't even acknowledged that what the doj did was wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gonzales was doing this to the nyt back in 2006. This was known before 2010. It was wrong then and wrong now.

Awesome! Link to your earliest post condemning it please!

I don't need a post stating anything from the past. It was wrong then and wrong now.

Well if was wrong then - why didn't you say it was wrong then? You joined in 2007 and you have >7000 posts, why hadn't you mentioned this until recently?

You have no problem with the govt spying and wiretapping reporters.....as long as O is in charge. You haven't even acknowledged that what the doj did was wrong.

What reporters were wire tapped without a warrant?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I could be wrong but I dont think that applies to the press. If it did it would hardly be a "free" press now would it.

Oh my fucking god you are stupid. Yes the LAW applies to the PRESS you fucking idiot.

My, that puts the US Code in conflict with the First Amendment, doesn't it, oh brilliant one?

 

[Stephanie]

wow, all of sudden nothing matters what this administration does..If this had been Bush..all hell would break loose..when has any administration went after a reporter this WAY? and by golly, this reporter just happens to be from FOX NEWS...nothing stange there.......man I'm speechless

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I could be wrong but I dont think that applies to the press. If it did it would hardly be a "free" press now would it.

Oh my fucking god you are stupid. Yes the LAW applies to the PRESS you fucking idiot.

My, that puts the US Code in conflict with the First Amendment, doesn't it, oh brilliant one?

I dunno Chief Justice Crackhead, where does the 1st amendment say reporters are immune from the law?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If this had been Bush..all hell would break loose..

That's what this is really all about to you idiots, isn't it? The law doesn't even matter, does it?

If you could point to one instance in which Bush obtained emails with a warrant that was condemned as scandalous by me or any other liberal poster on this board - I'd love to see it!!!

 

[Stephanie]

If this had been Bush..all hell would break loose..

That's what this is really all about to you idiots, isn't it? The law doesn't even matter, does it?

If you could point to one instance in which Bush obtained emails with a warrant that was condemned as scandalous by me or any other liberal poster on this board - I'd love to see it!!!

oh no...I think this administration should do this with EVERY Reporter...they did nothing wrong..that's why all of the Reporters from most every station even the HUFFERPOST have refused Holders request they attend his little tea party..but you see nothing that's all the matters