Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The part that stands out to me: "They obtained a search warrant." -- Meaning a judge thought there was enough probable cause -- meaning the law was followed, the 4th amendment has not been violated -- what's the big deal?
The reporter isn't being charged with anything -- they'll try to scare him into cooperating witch is perfectly legal but a good lawyer will tell him not to worry. He didn't pay for the info, it was given to him.
The DOJ finding a judge to obtain a search warrant? I'm sure he has a 100 of them in his back pocket for his disposal. Seems more like just showing how heavy handed Holder can be when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Nice try though, Hazel.
So does that mean any time the DOJ obtains a warrant and executes a search they are breaking the Constitution?
Now it seems that this administration didn't stop with the AP. Now it's been expanded to cover some of Fox News reporters.
The Department Of Justice Targeted A Fox News Reporter During A Leak Investigation
From the Post's report:
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 its ever illegal, given the First Amendments protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.
Read more: Fox News Reporter James Rosen Had DoJ Target - Business Insider
Apparently, Rosen had done nothing wrong as no charges or indictments were handed down. Business as usual for the Chicago style administration.
Holder is a piece of work with very dirty hands.
The part that stands out to me: "They obtained a search warrant." -- Meaning a judge thought there was enough probable cause -- meaning the law was followed, the 4th amendment has not been violated -- what's the big deal?
The reporter isn't being charged with anything -- they'll try to scare him into cooperating witch is perfectly legal but a good lawyer will tell him not to worry. He didn't pay for the info, it was given to him.
The DOJ finding a judge to obtain a search warrant? I'm sure he has a 100 of them in his back pocket for his disposal.
Seems more like just showing how heavy handed Holder can be when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Nice try though, Hazel.
The DOJ finding a judge to obtain a search warrant? I'm sure he has a 100 of them in his back pocket for his disposal. Seems more like just showing how heavy handed Holder can be when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Nice try though, Hazel.
So does that mean any time the DOJ obtains a warrant and executes a search they are breaking the Constitution?
You do understand that there were 3 people in the Fox organization, and not just Rosen.
The DOJ better have his ducks in a row and not just out on a fishing expedition like in this situation. It's not going to look to good for him and his "clueless" leader.
That's impossible! FOX has no news reporters!
And you have nothing to argue.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
No, they didn't.That's impossible! FOX has no news reporters!
And you have nothing to argue.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
And you have nothing to argue.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
What part of "unannounced seizure" did you not comprehend?
No, they didn't.And you have nothing to argue.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
No, they didn't.And you have nothing to argue.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
A federal judge signed off on the search warrant agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.
And you have nothing to argue.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
What part of "unannounced seizure" did you not comprehend?
He got in trouble for doing his JOB.. The Obama administration is LOSING ITThis is in regards to a 2009 leak probe by the Justice Department into the alleged criminal activity of Fox News justice correspondent James Rosen, after he published stories about North Korea. I surmise that Obama has a very low view of the information gathering methods some reporters use. Freedom of the press? Yeah, you can kiss that goodbye.
Court documents show abundant evidence gathered from Kims office computer and phone records, but investigators said they needed to go a step further to build their case, seizing two days worth of Rosens personal e-mails and all of his e-mail exchanges with Kim.
Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporters work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.
A rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe - The Washington Post
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
What part of "unannounced seizure" did you not comprehend?
Is that illegal?
Like a "no knock" warrant.
What would be the point of telling someone you've obtained a legal warrant to look at their email?
Bottom line -- if this were the Bush DOJ doing this -- all the teabagges around here would be cheering this.
I get how it looks - Obama DOJ vs Fox News, but doesn't the government have an obligation to try to catch employees breaking the law by leaking classified information?
What part of "unannounced seizure" did you not comprehend?
Is that illegal?
Like a "no knock" warrant.
What would be the point of telling someone you've obtained a legal warrant to look at their email?
Bottom line -- if this were the Bush DOJ doing this -- all the teabagges around here would be cheering this.
I get how it looks - Obama DOJ vs Fox News, but doesn't the government have an obligation to try to catch employees breaking the law by leaking classified information?
I knew you guys had a deep seated hatred for free speech and Fox News.. but dayum.
Just....
Dayum........
Why sure, we should only have government-approved news. They know what is best for us.
There's an argument?
The DOJ obtained a search warrant, did they not?
What part of "unannounced seizure" did you not comprehend?
No parts.
Hmmm
So when will the investigations of Dana Milbank begin?
Is that illegal?
Like a "no knock" warrant.
What would be the point of telling someone you've obtained a legal warrant to look at their email?
Bottom line -- if this were the Bush DOJ doing this -- all the teabagges around here would be cheering this.
I get how it looks - Obama DOJ vs Fox News, but doesn't the government have an obligation to try to catch employees breaking the law by leaking classified information?
I knew you guys had a deep seated hatred for free speech and Fox News.. but dayum.
Just....
Dayum........
Does the 1st amendment prohibit the Department of Justice from executing a search warrant approved by a judge against a member of the press?
Journalism rarely exists, today the 'News' is all about ratings. "BREAKING NEWS", lol. Attention getting? Not anymore. Remember when the news came in paper and an EXTRA was a rare and generally major event?
cable with 24/7 news channels changed all that. We can blame Ted Turner.
I knew you guys had a deep seated hatred for free speech and Fox News.. but dayum.
Just....
Dayum........
Does the 1st amendment prohibit the Department of Justice from executing a search warrant approved by a judge against a member of the press?
When there are no obvious violations of the law, yes. Idiot.
Why sure, we should only have government-approved news. They know what is best for us.
This is exactly what Obama has in mind as he does this. Silencing anyone that reports the news that isn't approved by the government.
Does the 1st amendment prohibit the Department of Justice from executing a search warrant approved by a judge against a member of the press?
When there are no obvious violations of the law, yes. Idiot.
So the DOJ is only allowed to investigate "obvious" violations of the law? I've never heard of that. Who decides what is "obvious" ? A judge? Or you? How do you know there were no "obvious" violations?
