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.
Ya? I would normally tell you to Google it, but since you are averse to anything that requires use of your prefrontal cortex, I saved you the trouble.
FBI's Affidavit For Search Warrant Of Fox's James Rosen
LOL! Mr. Kim was on the PHONE with Rosen at the same time he was stealing the top secret info - and later that day Rosen publishes an article revealing the same top secret info - and that's not probable cause?!?! AWFUL BIG COINCIDENCE,wouldn't you say?Thereafter, telephone call records for Mr. Kim's office phone reveal that at or
around the same time that Mr. Kim's user profile was viewing the TSISCI Intelligence Report two telephone calls were placed from his desk phone to the Reporter.
I WANT WHAT YOU ARE SMOKING BUDDY!
Oh wow. He was on the phone? That's it?
So does that mean any time the DOJ obtains a warrant and executes a search they are breaking the Constitution?
LOL! Mr. Kim was on the PHONE with Rosen at the same time he was stealing the top secret info - and later that day Rosen publishes an article revealing the same top secret info - and that's not probable cause?!?! AWFUL BIG COINCIDENCE,wouldn't you say?
I WANT WHAT YOU ARE SMOKING BUDDY!
Oh wow. He was on the phone? That's it?
No. That's not it! He was on the phone - with Mr. Kim - while Mr. Kim was stealing the information - and then later that day he published an article containing that information. Did you not understand the English words in my last post?
So does that mean any time the DOJ obtains a warrant and executes a search they are breaking the Constitution?
When they go after enemies of Obama, yes - you fascist thug.
Holder is the most corrupt AG in history - you know it, and you love it.
No. That's not it! He was on the phone - with Mr. Kim - while Mr. Kim was stealing the information - and then later that day he published an article containing that information. Did you not understand the English words in my last post?
Oh wow. He was on the phone? That's it?
No. That's not it! He was on the phone - with Mr. Kim - while Mr. Kim was stealing the information - and then later that day he published an article containing that information. Did you not understand the English words in my last post?
Sorry, cant say that any of the info endangered any national defense interests. This is going to be your Benghazi, isn't it?
No. That's not it! He was on the phone - with Mr. Kim - while Mr. Kim was stealing the information - and then later that day he published an article containing that information. Did you not understand the English words in my last post?
Then why didn't they charge him?
So does that mean any time the DOJ obtains a warrant and executes a search they are breaking the Constitution?
When they go after enemies of Obama, yes - you fascist thug.
Holder is the most corrupt AG in history - you know it, and you love it.
So the DOJ is not allowed to execute lawfully obtained search warrants against members of the opposing party to the President?
No. That's not it! He was on the phone - with Mr. Kim - while Mr. Kim was stealing the information - and then later that day he published an article containing that information. Did you not understand the English words in my last post?
Sorry, cant say that any of the info endangered any national defense interests. This is going to be your Benghazi, isn't it?
Its a crime to reveal or to knowingly receive top secret information without authorization - it doesn't matter if doing so actually endangers the national defense.
One wonders if it has anything to do with politics.
Maybe it's about missing children or something?
No. That's not it! He was on the phone - with Mr. Kim - while Mr. Kim was stealing the information - and then later that day he published an article containing that information. Did you not understand the English words in my last post?
Then why didn't they charge him?
Obviously they didn't find enough evidence to support a criminal prosecution.
Do you understand the difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Ever taken a civics class?
I dunno. The news cycle dominates. Sure Fox's motive was less about reporting than finding something critical of obama. I'd like to know Kim's motives. Did he thing Obama wasn't pushing sanctions enough, and tried to force Obama's hand?"
This is quite different from Libby maniupulating Judith Miller to push a false story. It's also a lot different from a guy like John Dean acting on conscience. Kim may not be a bad guy, but when you work for the govt you don't leak state security stuff without some really compelling reason.
When they go after enemies of Obama, yes - you fascist thug.
Holder is the most corrupt AG in history - you know it, and you love it.
So the DOJ is not allowed to execute lawfully obtained search warrants against members of the opposing party to the President?
No, we evolved (supposedly) from tyranny 237 years ago. Are you simply stuck in the past?
Sorry, cant say that any of the info endangered any national defense interests. This is going to be your Benghazi, isn't it?
Its a crime to reveal or to knowingly receive top secret information without authorization - it doesn't matter if doing so actually endangers the national defense.
It is a crime to exercise your First Amendment rights?
He didn't leak state secrets, you fucking moron.Its a crime to reveal or to knowingly receive top secret information without authorization - it doesn't matter if doing so actually endangers the national defense.
It is a crime to exercise your First Amendment rights?
The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to leak state secrets you fucking moron.
He didn't leak state secrets, you fucking moron.It is a crime to exercise your First Amendment rights?
The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to leak state secrets you fucking moron.
