Skip to main content

Anonymous government officials are scrambling to defend the Justice Department's chilling surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen after the Justice Department declared Rosen a criminal aider and abettor and co-conspirator to a federal judge in connection with one of the Obama administration's record-breaking number of Espionage Act prosecutions for alleged mishandling of classified information. Anonymous government officials claim that the Justice Department notified Rosen and Fox News' parent corporation that the government had obtained his e-mail records. The Washington Post reports:


“The government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile, and e-mail,” according to the law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing.
Despite WaPo's giving the government the benefit of the doubt (the headline read: "Official: Justice notified News Corp. of Subpoena"), News Corp. general counsel at the time Lon Jacobs has no record of receiving such a notification:
“We do not have a record of ever having received it.” Lon Jacobs, the News Corp. general counsel at the time, said the company had come up empty in a search of his files.

“I would think that’s the kind of thing I would remember,” Jacobs said in an interview Tuesday. “The first thing I would have done is call [Fox news chief] Roger Ailes.”

If the anonymous government official is right, the easiest way to prove it would be for the Justice Department to cough up the records of the "certified mail, facsimile, and e-mail" it sent to Rosen and News Corp. If the Justice Department is struggling to locate the records, it could check with the National Security Agency, which, as my client Bill Binney has repeatedly warned, is in the business of collecting and storing Americans' electronic communications for the past decade.

The government has every motivation to claim it notified New Corp. so as to not get caught (again - see the AP scandal ) diverging from its regulation mandating that subpoenas for reporters' records be brought only as a last resort, that requests be narrowly tailored in content and length, and that the government attempt to negotiate with the journalist.

Meanwhile, the government is again trying to divert the public's attention away from the Justice Department's completely ignoring its own regulation with a new pledge to investigate revising the Justice Department's guidelines on when the government can subpoena journalists. If history is any lesson, the proposed revisions will serve to make it easier for the government to investigate reporters not more difficult (ex. revisions to the FBI's investigative guidelines).

Rather than investigating how it can avoid violating its own guidelines in the future, the Justice Department - or better yet a special counsel - should be investigating why prosecutors deviated so dramatically from the existing guidelines in the AP and Rosen cases.

Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to review department guidelines for conducting such investigations. Holder’s aides told the Daily Beast that the attorney general felt a “creeping sense of remorse” after reading reports of the search warrant for Rosen’s e-mail.
The fact that Holder's stomach drops when the press and the public are outraged after finding out Holder authorized the surveillance on Rosen is cold comfort considering the Justice Department's unprecedented, chilling attack on journalists and whistleblowers. The nation's chief law enforcement officer didn't have any qualms about trampling on the First Amendment when he could do in secret. If that doesn't make the case of transparency, nothing does. If the Justice Department wants to start salvaging what's left of its reputation after prosecuting whistleblowers and letting torturers off the hook, it could start with giving the public actual evidence rather than anonymous leaks.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (114+ / 0-)

    My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:55:57 AM PDT

    •  Linked article is pretty vague (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, sebastianguy99, MartyM, sponson

      What exactly is the lie supposed to be?

      •  this seems pretty specific, doesn't it? (16+ / 0-)
        “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

        However, NBC News reported the following week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.

        The panel is investigating whether NBC’s report contradicts Holder’s claim that he had not looked into or been involved with a possible prosecution of the press in a leaks case.
         

        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

        by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:36:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not specific at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto

          Approving a warrant does not mean a possible prosecution. Furthermore, other reports have indicated that the search warrant identified Rosen as an unindicted co-conspirator. I don't know if that part was left off, or was untrue. If true, then there's no evidence whatsoever that even a possible prosecution has been considered. All that exists is the accusation of a lie, with no actual description of what that lie might be.

          •  Yes, it is somewhat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            I'm sorry--it seems that you're splitting hairs and I'm not.

            You are right to say "approving a warrant does not mean a possible prosecution", though it strongly hints at the possibility. The rest is your opinion, with the exception of your last sentence, which makes no sense. It's absolutely clear regarding what is being sought in the testimony:

            The panel is investigating whether NBC’s report contradicts Holder’s claim that he had not looked into or been involved with a possible prosecution of the press in a leaks case.
            -the only thing it does not do is actually quote the alleged lie, and frankly, this article is not court testimony, so it doesn't need to.
             

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:32:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  what it is SUPPOSED to be is another radack (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MartyM

        attempt to smear the department of justice.

        she has an obvious agenda that was summed up by justice henry h. kennedy, jr. when he dismissed her lawsuit against the doj, so she is continuing to "try" the d.o.j. on any forum she can find - including this site.

        Radack has not alleged anywhere in the record that DOJ is likely to injure her in the future—or even suggested that this is a possibility. Rather, the request for an injunction appears to have a punitive animus or be based on a generalized desire for vindication. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 20 (“a declaration and injunction would redress Ms. Radack’s injury by labeling the
        Department’s action as what it really was—retaliation.”).

        [p.8]

        further illustrated in the dismissal of radack's lawsuit is her propensity to jump to the wrong conclusions regarding the actions of the d.o.j.
        From these documents, Radack asks the court to conclude that OPR can refer cases to state bar associations only when the listed criteria—the completion of an investigation, a conclusive finding of professional misconduct, and an affirmation thereof by the Department—are met. She insists that because none of these criteria was met in her case, OPR “violated its own policy,” id. ¶ 58, thereby acting in a manner that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.” This argument is unpersuasive.
        Indeed, the letter to Congress upon which Radack relies states explicitly that “OPR will continue its policy of referring to the bar allegations against attorneys who have left the
        Department where the allegations fall more appropriately within the bar’s investigatory jurisdiction or the attorney refuses to cooperate with OPR.” Id. at 3.

        This stated referral policyappears to encompass Radack’s case exactly—OPR is referring to the bar authority allegations against a former DOJ attorney because further investigation seems to fall more appropriately under the bars’ purview than the Department’s.

        And, even if this allegation-referral policy does not cover OPR’s actions in this case, Radack has not presented any evidence that would allow the court to conclude that the Department has adopted a policy that prohibits it from acting as it did.  
        pp 12,13

        (paragraph formatting added for easier reading)

        it appears that radack continues to misinterpret the policy and actions of the d.o.j.   this diary reads as such a smear that i would have expected it in the national inquirer, not here.  we are supposed to be reality based.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:49:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm. Seems to me YOU have an agenda here. (11+ / 0-)

          Smear Attack the OP.  Bummer.

          Oh, and that agenda supports your #1 agenda:

          Defend this particular POTUS/Admin regardless of their actions.

          Way too transparent, dear.  Poor show.

          The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

          by JVolvo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:06:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not a smear when it is the truth, my friend. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MartyM

            and radack is the only one pushing smears around here.

            also, where in my posts do you see any mention of the POTUS/admin?

            you need to possible re-read my posts with a better pair of glasses.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:27:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Funny, I'm not wearing the rose-tinted frames so (11+ / 0-)

              I see DoJ overreach illegality (that we would ALL object to if it were BushCo DoJ) and more Admin heavy-handedness when it comes to "security."

              If only we had an administration that would vow to be transparent...

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:51:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  wish i knew the code for awesome eyeroll thing.. (0+ / 0-)

                so,  instead...

                :::eyeroll:::

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:55:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read page 24 and 25 of this link (4+ / 0-)

                  http://s3.documentcloud.org/...

                  If Kim is telling the truth and Rosen seemed to be goading him to answer questions that alluded to a classified document that Kim never gave him, then why go after all journalists?  

                  Instead of getting angry at anyone who questions what the DOJ did, why not learn about this case.  Clearly, DOJ didn't handle it well.  They should not have spied on AP journalists phone lines by sneaking around with the phone companies the way they did behind AP's back.  That's a real slap in the face of freedom of the press if ever there was one.

                  Kim said he spoke to Rosen hoping to get a job at a think tank.  The DOJ should investigate this aspect of the alleged leak, not journalists.  Rosen allegedly gave Kim the idea he would help him get a job, which is bribery.  Go after bribery charges, not soliciting info, which is not a crime.

                  If Kim is telling the truth, Rosen learned about the contents of the classified document elsewhere, but possibly used Kim's pointed questioning to implicate Kim and cover up the real source.  This DOJ investigation looks like it could be a witch hunt and a cover up of the real source of the classified document by using Kim as the fall guy.

                  Seriously, the DOJ needs to be investigated for spying on journalists and possibly covering up the investigation of the real leaker by using Rosen's interviews to blame Kim.

                  The DOJ bungled this investigation.  Don't shoot the messenger.

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:24:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  A smear? (9+ / 0-)

          That's funny, I don't read the diary that way at all. Your comment, OTOH, sure looks like a case of kill the messenger, done very badly.  

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:05:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Edrie, really??? (0+ / 0-)

          Jesselyn's opening paragraph says it all, doesn't it?

          after the Justice Department declared Rosen a criminal aider and abettor and co-conspirator
          Why aren't they going after McCain?  He personally went to Syria and met with terrorists, did he not?

          Is he not "aiding and abetting" AND now a "co-conspirator" with known terrorists?

          Who's zooming whom here?

          She has been defending the 1st Amendment and whistleblowers for a very long time.  How is it a "smear campaign" again?

          If our government didn't have arbitrary rules and arbitrary secret interpretations and secret court hearings, then we wouldn't be here discussing it now would we?

          If our government didn't act in a criminal and unconstitutional manner, Jesselyn would have nothing to write about, right?

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:50:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Holder is a liar and is not be trusted (26+ / 0-)

      From reading the article at the link I don't see a smoking gun. IMO the more damning testimony was Holder explaining why some banks are too big to prosecute:

      From March 3, 2013 Huffpost:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      When the Attorney General of the United States admits some banks are simply too big to prosecute, it might be time to admit we have a problem -- and that goes for both the financial and justice systems.

      Eric Holder made this rather startling confession in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, The Hill reports. It could be a key moment in the debate over whether to do something about the size and complexity of our biggest banks, which have only gotten bigger and more systemically important since the financial crisis.

      "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to The Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

      Holder's comments don't come as a total surprise. His underlings had already made similar confessions to The New York Times last year, after they declined to prosecute HSBC for flagrant, years-long violations of money-laundering laws, out of fear that doing so would hurt the global economy. Lanny Breuer, formerly in charge of doling out the Justice Department's wrist slaps to banks, told Frontline as much in the documentary "The Untouchables," which aired in January.

      Elizabeth Warren's recent questioning has confirmed that there have been no studies, no reports, no documentation that supports Holder's assertion in bold above. None. Zilch. Years of the Justice Department refusing to follow the law and fabricating a false excuse for the failure to do so. That should be a BFD!

      Why isn't the House Judiciary Committee looking into this slam dunk false testimony? Could it be because they are paid not to?

      Holder needs to go.

    •  CNN Botches Key Facts In Holder Story (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MartyM, Pluto
      CNN Botches Key Facts In Holder Story

      ERIC BOEHLERT

      Reporting that House Republicans are investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress during his recent testimony about Justice Department seizures of communications records in connection with a national security leak investigation, CNN's Dana Bash misstated key facts of the controversy. In so doing, CNN helped bolster the hollow claims of Republicans -- wildly hyped by Fox News -- that Holder may have perjured himself

      <...>

      Then later in the piece, CNN misstated the contents of the FBI warrant request:

      An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen's e-mails said there was probable cause the reporter had broken the law when he allegedly received a leaked classified report from a State Department contractor.

      The CNN report additionally claimed Rosen was labeled a "co-conspirator" to "the crime of disclosing government secrets." Both claims are inaccurate.

      According to the FBI warrant request, Fox's Rosen was labeled a "co-conspirator" not because he "received" leaked information or disclosed it, but because, according to the FBI, he solicited the information.

      From NBCNews.com:

      In a 2010 affidavit in support of the search warrant, an FBI agent named Rosen as a possible "co-conspirator" in the case because he "asked, solicited and encouraged" Kim to give him information.

      <...>

      http://mediamatters.org/...

      The Rosen Case: Questions About the Kim Warrant
      http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
      •  Well they're (0+ / 0-)

        actually wrong.

        The affidavit cites a specific statute that states that the information in questions is specifically prohibited (and illegal) to be leaked, and that receiving the information and then disseminating it is also prohibited (and illegal).

        The evidence listed was about asking for, but also receiving, the information, i.e. (totally paraphrasing), "exchanged phone call/e-mail three hours prior to going to print with information"

        That isn't about asking for the information.  That is establishing a nexus between Kim and Rosen regarding where the information came from, information which was then disseminated, hence - possible crime.

         

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:03:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Justice Dept: Trust Us (48+ / 0-)

    Doesn't sound like they've learned yet that this line of defense isn't going to fly.

    Rosen might be a creep, but just like the KKK's free speech rights he's entitled to the same protections as other journalists, no matter what some people think of his journalism.  Constitutional protections of rights are primarily there for creeps, or those judged as such by others anyway.  

    Nice to see the press' ox being gored here, since they have generally been so uninterested in violations of other Americans' civil liberties by governmental intrusion.

    If you want to cut Social Security, you're not a real Democrat.

    by Dallasdoc on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:04:31 AM PDT

    •  Journalism is not exposing contacts in NKorea (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob B, Gary Norton, Quicklund, edrie

      to influence policy, there was no need for the press to out this information for the pubic good, it was for HIS good.

      •  Yawn (40+ / 0-)

        You're trying to claim Rosen isn't a journalist to allow for DOJ's improper surveillance.  That's a very slippery slope, and not something we would approve if a Republican administration were using the same threadbare justification for similar abuses.  If we would object when a Republican DOJ did it to left-leaning journalists, we should object just as much if a Democratic DOJ does it to Fox.

        If you want to cut Social Security, you're not a real Democrat.

        by Dallasdoc on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:19:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ccyd, cfm, Gary Norton, Quicklund, merrywidow, Pluto

          i don't think anyone is saying rosen 'isn't a journalist'. but just because someone is one doesn't mean that everything they do is defensible under the guise of freedom of press.

          you want to publish classified information under the guise of whistleblowing, i defend that in principle. but that doesn't mean you can leak info for any reason.

          anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

          by chopper on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:24:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, but to take your point. . . (11+ / 0-)

            Then in those circumstances where it was truly critical information that was very necessary to keep secret, the DOJ, upon launching an investigation, needs to be above board completely and openly and be willing to open all the books to demonstrate that they were acting properly.

            IF DOJ had a damn good reason for their motivation, then they should have no trouble whatsoever opening up the files, having the meetings and explaining themselves.

            It does not sound like that is the case, though.

            Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

            by 4CasandChlo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:31:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund

              none of that really demonstrates that rosen was whistleblowing. and let's face it, it doesn't have to be 'truly critical information'. it's not like it has to be the secret of the hydrogen bomb before we'd consider a leak to be improper.

              anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

              by chopper on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:44:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Rosen isn't a whistleblower... (12+ / 0-)

                ...please don't confuse a journalist with a whistleblower (or a leaker) -- the whistleblower (leaker) is the person who speaks to the journalist.  

                Rosen HAD to be indicted as a co-conspirator (unprecedented step taken by DOJ) because as a reporter he's protected by the First Amendment.  He was indicted so the DOJ could snoop into his emails and get his phone records so they could figure out WHO was passing on information to him.

                Whistleblowers are reporters' sources.

                Just because you think something isn't newsworthy doesn't mean that I will necessarily agree with your judgment.  That's not a call I want you making for me.

                •  well (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund, edrie

                  you can't just say 'doesn't matter if it was whistleblowing or not, i just publish the stuff'. publishing classified information is not automatically protected under the 1st amendment.

                  anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

                  by chopper on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:54:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Information... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...is vetted by at least 2 million First Amendment lawyers before it's published/broadcast.  

                    You don't think Fox (NBC/CBS/NYT/WaPo,etc...)has slew of lawyers versed in First Amendment/Nat. Sec. Law who advise on the legality or potential liability of broadcasting certain information?  Believe me, they cover their asses.    Which is not to say that someone didn't break a dozen laws by talking to Fox.  But the distinction of who can be prosecuted is pretty clear based on the First Amendment.

          •  I feel a little less charitable toward Rosen (4+ / 0-)

            His stated purpose in the emails he, himself, wrote was to influence policy and not simply to report news.  And perhaps the argument is that reporters try to influence policy all the time -- i.e. part of their job.  I don't buy that argument, however.  I think that reporters engaged in reporting the news report the news first and let the policy chips fall where they may.  When Rosen sought to effect policy first, he forfeited some of his First Amendment protection.

            I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

            by ccyd on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:19:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If what the FBI stated in the warrant app is true (3+ / 0-)

              then Rosen was certainly acting like an intelligence service; offering inducements (helping the leaker get a job at a "think tank") developing a clandestine communications plan, providing direction as to the materials to be collected.

              And all the Strum und Drang is over 2 days worth of emails in Rosen's "clandestine" account.

              •  For what think tank did Rosen allegedly offer job (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens

                as a bribe to leak secret information?  How was that e-mail account "clandestine"?  

                Please provide links.

                Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:04:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Finding documents really isn't that hard ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund

                  Application for Search Warrant via The New Yorker  pg 24 for "think tank" help, none specific one named, and pg 26 about email account.

                  •  So, Rosen is allegedly a spy and is bribing (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    3goldens, Dallasdoc, 4kedtongue

                    government employees to provide him with classified info.  Why don't they just charge him for bribing a government employee, period, not soliciting info.  Soliciting info is not a crime and charging Rosen with that impinges on freedom of the press.  Bribery is a crime, for which prosecution does not threaten freedom of the press.  

                    What entity or country is Rosen allegedly working to affect change on our foreign policy by bribing public officials to release classified info?

                    I really would like to know for what think tank outfit Rosen allegedly offered the guy a job.  

                    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                    by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:30:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Soliciting classified information IS a crime (0+ / 0-)

                      18 USC §793(c)

                      (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
                      agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
                      any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
                      sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
                      model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
                      the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
                      time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
                      obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
                      disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
                      chapter; or
                  •  Thank you, btw, for the link. It's amazing. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    4kedtongue

                    If the FBI wants to investigate people who are clearly causing death and destruction in this world and are a threat to national security by starting wars and creative destruction based on the false CT that they spread (yellowcake, mushroom clouds, ...), then they shouldn't defy our Constitution by spying on journalists, but should investigate these think tanks who may be using journalists to do their dirty work.

                    If the think tanks are bribing our government employees with lucrative revolving door jobs to obtain classified info, then they have committed a crime and should be investigated and prosecuted.  Leave the journalists alone.

                    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                    by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:58:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  never thought i'd live to see the day that people (0+ / 0-)

                      on this site would defend fox "journalists" as being actual, like, ya know... "journalists"

                      my god - the contortions - they BURN!!!

                      or...

                      is it that there is a small core group of people here who will align with ANYONE to slam this administration?

                      my question is why?

                      (not holding my breath for an honest answer, btw)

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:02:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We don't get to pick and choose (5+ / 0-)

                        who freedoms apply to.  Same principle as the ACLU defending the right of KKK assholes to march.

                        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                        by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:27:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  defending the law and defending the indefensible (0+ / 0-)

                          are two totally separate issues.

                          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                          by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:52:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Except when one group's idea (4+ / 0-)

                            of "indefensible" imposes on the ability to "defend the law" as applied to everyone.

                            A lot of bigots think LBGT rights are "indefensible."

                            So unless I'm misreading your comment, I'd have to say they actually ARE very related issues.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
                            ~ Jerry Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:33:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Except we were outraged at Cheney outing a CIA (0+ / 0-)

                          operative, and demand his prosecution, then turn around and defend leaking info on our NK inside sources as "whistleblowing".

                          •  Actually, my objection is primarily (0+ / 0-)

                            to the characterization of Rosen as a suspected criminal, a co-conspirator.  I don't object to any and all prosecutions for revealing classified information - although there's a good argument to be made that all such prosecutions are illegitimate on the basis of their selective nature.  Members of the government leak classified information to reporters on practically a daily basis but face no investigation whatsoever simply because the leak serves the administration's agenda.

                            I think my position on this is entirely consistent:

                            1) Declassify everything that isn't truly vital to national security - in my estimation that's at most 5% of what's classified today.

                            2) If, going forward, people improperly classify information - fire them (maybe after one or two warnings/reprimands.

                            3) Don't go after reporters for doing their jobs - jobs which include soliciting classified information from time to time.

                            4) Do prosecute leakers of properly classified information - but do so in a strictly uniform manner for all such leaks - even if they come from "senior administration officials" and were leaked to serve the administration's political agenda.

                            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                            by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:30:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your proposal might cause a chilling effect wrt (0+ / 0-)

                            diplomatic communications.

                            If, for example, a diplomat overseas can't send a candid cable to the State Dept because it will be automatically declassified and therefore eligible for release to the public (because the cable doesn't meet your "truly vital to national security" threshold), then that damages that diplomat's ability to do the job.

                            For example, one of Manning's leaked diplomatic cables was a message from an overseas diplomat to the State Dept saying that that the overseas diplomat didn't find some foreign official he/she was dealing with to be trustworthy.  Now, what possible good does it do to release that message to the public?  (I remember some nonsensical posts to progressive blogosphere saying that even writing that message was an outrage in and of itself, and the public had a need to know of that message so that the public would be aware of the "insult" that our diplomat had made in an undisclosed message.)  And if diplomats were concerned about messages being released, then the diplomat wouldn't use candor in his/her messages to the State Dept, thus the chilling effect.  And diplomacy is what we try to use use instead of wars; handicapping our diplomatic efforts by declassifying nearly all communications would be counterproductive, IMO.

                          •  Obviously we disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.  

                            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                            by jrooth on Thu May 30, 2013 at 05:25:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dick Cheney isn't a journalist. (0+ / 0-)

                            By outing Valerie Plame, he, and others, did break the law in order to discredit her husband, Amb. Joe Wilson, to facilitate the start of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

                            Cheney had no authority as vice president to disclose classified information.

                      •  What kind of answer (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        4kedtongue, Nada Lemming

                        would meet your definition of an "honest" answer?

                        Would it be something like:

                        "Yes, you caught us. The singular goal of our small core group here on Daily Kos is to take the side opposite the Obama Administration no matter what, because Obama."

                        Nevermind the fact that some people might have a legitimate reason to do so, like, you know, the Obama administration might actually be on the wrong side of an issue, perhaps?

                        Has it crossed your mind that the Administration, and the guy who heads it up, might not be infallible?

                        Do you support rubber-stamping of any policy put forth by this Administration, regardless of the potential consequences that policy might have? As in, AFTER Obama leaves office? Or next time a Republican gets in the White House?

                        That you imply this is a non-issue that is nothing more than the Left, or at least a "small core group" here on DK that might be categorized as such, supporting Fox News just for the sake of opposing Obama because they just hate him so much or something, is truly breathtaking.




                        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
                        ~ Jerry Garcia

                        by DeadHead on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:21:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Obama isn't infallible, and I can prove it. (0+ / 0-)

                          1. It's a given axiom that the purist left is infallible.
                          2. Anyone that ever disagrees with an infallible entity cannot be infallible.
                          3. President Obama has disagreed with the purist left from time to time.
                          4. Therefore President Obama is not infallible.
                          Q.E.D.

                          •  Um...News flash (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming

                            The "purist left" do not hold elected office. Only in your mind and others with a similar level of unwavering reverence for the president can this constituency be a threat to his agenda/mid-term electoral victory and at the same time be merely a minor irritant to be brushed aside.

                            And President Obama has disagreed with this "purist left" more than just "from time to time." It has been the rule, not the exception.

                            But your ridiculous attempt at an answer to my above question is duly noted. That you offer nothing substantive in reply comes as no surprise.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
                            ~ Jerry Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:02:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. (0+ / 0-)
            •  and even then (0+ / 0-)

              if you publish classified info merely because you think information should be published, you're going to get in trouble. doing so to reveal corruption, you'll likely do better, but you'll still get in trouble. however, we can all agree that a journo shouldn't get in trouble for the latter (i mean, you do have to weigh the effects of the info being made public, but still whistleblowing is whistleblowing). as for the former, it's harder to support. classified information shouldn't be published 'just because'.

              doing so in order to influence foreign policy for your own personal reasons, that is much harder to defend merely under the guise of 'i'm a journalist'. trying to personally influence policy by leaking information isn't really 'journalism'.

              anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

              by chopper on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:54:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  dallasdoc (6+ / 0-)

          IIRC, an FBI report stated that Rosen was a co-conspirator, which would have justified surveillance.  
             The allegation against Rosen, apparently, was that he solicited the theft of the information and was not just a passive recipient.
             Given that there are whistleblowers and sometimes journalists do publish information that is necessary for the public understanding of the issue.
             But, by publishing a story that compromises intelligence methods and sources, a journalist can get Americans killed.
             DOJ was apparently looking for a leak in the Sate Department, during wartime. I'd cut them some slack on this.
             The question: Under what circumstances does a journalist have the right to publish classified information?
             And who is a journalist?
             

          •  What investigative journalist (11+ / 0-)

            in the national defense field doesn't solicit classified information?  At the absurd rate anything and everything of import gets classified, they could hardly do their jobs without doing that.

            So do you really want to endorse the criminalization of such journalistic activity?  If not, how does one separate the legitimate solicitation from the illegitimate?

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:43:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  despite his lack of general integrity (13+ / 0-)

            for working for FOX--a specious outfit, but nonetheless protected as a "news source"--James Rosen is a journalist whether any of us likes it or not.

            And "cut the DOJ some slack"?? No. Their job is the rule of law. Period. They need to demonstrate that what they did was on the up-and-up, before they go pointing fingers (or worse) at others.

            And not for nothing, but the irony of the DOJ or the WH using anonymous leakers to drop a defense on the public, to lessen the impact of their possibly-not-on-the-up-and-up actions has surely escaped your scrutiny...
             

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:45:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's start with the premise (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund

              that there is a limit on freedom of the press under the First Amendment.  How do you determine what kind of restraint on newsgathering complies with the Amendment and what does not?  The strict scrutiny test applies to freedom of speech cases.  Why not here?

              For the uninitiated, strict constitutional scrutiny is (and I paraphrase) that there is a compelling governmental interest in the law or policy; the law or policy is narrowly tailored to meet that interest; and the law or policy is the least restrictive means possible.

              How would this turn out under strict scrutiny?

              I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

              by ccyd on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:05:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  cfm said Rosen offered a job at a "think tank" to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, lunachickie

              bribe the guy to release classified info.  Have you read anything about this aspect of the case?  Which "think tank"?

              Journalists have a right to solicit info, but if Rosen offered a bribe to obtain classified info, is that covered by Freedom of the Press?

              What if a spy uses journalism as a cover for espionage?  How can he be prosecuted?

              cfm didn't provide a link, though.

              Either Rosen is a legitimate journalist or, as cfm has alleged, he is a spy using bribery to obtain classified info.  If he is a spy, then prosecute him for being a spy, not a journalist seeking info legitimately.  For what entity or country is Rosen spying to affect change in foreign policy?

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:18:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This, right here (0+ / 0-)

                is what I've been trying to find the words for all morning...

                If he is a spy, then prosecute him for being a spy, not a journalist seeking info legitimately.
                Exactly. And if he's a spy, wouldn't they have already done that?

                And how?  How did they come up with this scenario at all? How did the DOJ extrapolate the possibility of Rosen being a spy before any crimes had taken place? That should be the bottom line here. The DOJ had to know and understand that one of the downsides of this was the possibility of a court challenge because its actions' net effect is to chill out whistleblowing to the press.

                And if it does, then given the Obama DOJ positions on other areas of whistleblowing, and because of Holder's general incompetence wrapped up in a nice wrapping of fealty ("we can't prosecute criminal bankers, they're too big!"), these people no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.

                "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:54:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  you ask... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            virginislandsguy
            And who is a journalist?
            funny... but not a single name comes to mind today.  plenty of names from years past - cronkite, edwards, murrow, rather, reynolds - the list could go on and on - but today, i'm struggling to find just one.

            we HAVE no real journalists in america - we've talking heads, opinion writers, rumor peddlers, egomaniacs - but not real journalists that prominently come to mind.

            reading these comments, i am stunned that so few are willing to condemn the actions of rosen on the basis of the false meme of "WHISTLEBLOOOOWER!"

            at last look, newsreaders and "fournalists" don't have diplomatic immunity and are not outside the bounds of civil law.

            this entire converstion (not your part, but the diary) is based on a false hypothesis and false equivalency.  but, then, i am not surprised... are you?

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rosen is NOT a whistleblower or leaker (7+ / 0-)

              He can't be because he's never signed a confidentiality agreement or had secret access. He's reporting information someone else provided him. This case is about going after a reporter because some leaked information. And I note that you don't even mention the lies holder is telling.

              Apparently everyone is closing ranks on this one. If that's where this place is headed then my time here may have to come to an end.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:15:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  AoT, i find it impossible to discuss an issue (0+ / 0-)

                that is already based on a false premise ("rosen is a whistleblower")

                as usual, raddack has distracted from the actual issue by throwing in this caveat - and it keeps us from actually discussing the issues here.

                when a position is based on inaccuracies and distortions, it is NEVER possible to have an honest discussion.

                if you or anyone else wants to write a diary on whether or not the actions of a reporter usurps the laws regarding classified information and when it would be acceptible, i'd love to participate.

                to be drawn into a discussion where the diarist is pushing a personal agenda only serves to lend support to that agenda - so, as for the "issue" of rosen and the doj is usurped.

                btw, are you coming to nn13?  would love to see you and sit and chat face to face again.  

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No one said rosen was a whistle blower (9+ / 0-)

                  Because he can't have been. He's a reporter. Only the people who support this attack on the press arecalling him a leaked or a whistleblower. The person who he got the info from was definitely a leaked and breaking the law. And from what I know this also wasn't a case of whistleblowing. But that's besides the point. The point is that reporters have freedoms that government employees don't and if this precedent stands then we'll have a situation where the government can go after any reporter who reports leaked information. In fact, this precedent could be used, and likely would be, to go after wikileaks.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:39:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  reporters are still bound by some constraints in (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT

                    the law - and that is the larger issue.  reporters don't have diplomatic immunity - they cannot simply do what ever they want because they are a reporter.

                    and, they can't use being a reporter as an excuse for putting lives at risk or for publishing information with total disregard to the consequences.  

                    if the reason people are upset is related to wikileaks, that is not what is on the table here.

                    but, let's discuss it elsewhere.  i'd prefer not to give more energy to this tainted diary.

                    ANY diary that is so filled with the innuendo and slant of this one is not one where i choose to spend much time.  i will call out the obvious bias, then leave to prevent more "hits" on the actual propaganda.  i'd love to talk about this with you - only somewhere other than here - another diary, perhaps?

                    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                    by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:54:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What lives did Rosen put at risk by reporting (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc, 4kedtongue, AoT, SamanthaCarter

                      what he did about North Korea?

                      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                      by lysias on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:23:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Reporting on our NK insider info gives heads up (0+ / 0-)

                        to NK that we have inside sources of some kind, and NK might take action to find the source and deal with them.  

                        Rosen reported classified info, not to blow the whistle on a wrongdoing, but to pressure the administration to adopt neocon policy with regards to North Korea (he says this himself).  And he put our NK sources (whatever or whoever they might be) at risk (of at least being compromised from obtaining further NK info, if not at risk of their lives too).

                        I still don't get why progressives are so adamant that Rosen should be held up as some hero for compromising our NK sources (for the purpose of pushing neocon policy, nonetheless) or treating Rosen's leaker as a modern day Ellsburg.  It's like you guys are so wrapped up in your ideology that you allow it to blind you as to what's really going on.

                        •  Our NK sources are almost certainly signals (0+ / 0-)

                          intelligence.  It would hurt our intelligence effort to have North Korea clued in to weaknesses in its communications, but it would hardly endanger lives.

                          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                          by lysias on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:47:57 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  By the way, I speak as a retired naval officer (0+ / 0-)

                          who spent nearly 20 years in military intelligence.  If that career taught me anything, it is how much is unnecessarily and frivolously overclassified.  That, as much as anything else, endangers our country's intelligence efforts.

                          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                          by lysias on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:06:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  so (0+ / 0-)

                      You agree?

                      Who died and made it an issue? Really.
                      WHO DIED?

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:18:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  also (0+ / 0-)

                      I'd like to talk soon.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  But many claim that Rosen's *leaker* is a whistle (0+ / 0-)

                    blower, which is a totally false claim.

              •  The statute used (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                edrie, Quicklund

                in the Affidavit specifically prohibits anyone from reporting the type of information Kim leaked.

                No confidentiality agreement has to be signed - you and I and everyone else is specifically prohibited from leaking or disseminating or printing information regarding the government holding or storing munitions.

                The story in question was about the government having intercepted a bomb, which it was storing.

                So, no, it's not just about going after a reporter willy-nilly just cuz he said stuff.

                They cited a law specific to the situation.

                We are not allowed to report classified information about weapons.  Perhaps in this case it is not on the nose, i.e., they didn't discuss where our nukes are or which experimental weapons we are developing.  

                But the Bush-appointed judge saw sufficient justification in the nexus - Kim gave the info to Rosen and Rosen printed the information - and the fact that it is illegal to leak the info or, having received it, to disseminate it further.

                The law is actually that specific.

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:10:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  oh, well (0+ / 0-)

                  If they made it illegal first then fine. Fuck the first amendment, it's just quaint bullshit like the Geneva conventions.

                  What a joke this site has become.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:04:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, but (0+ / 0-)

                    I kinda don't want just anyone with a press credential telling the world where our weapons are, or how many we have, or how they work, or what we may be innovating.

                    That is what this particular law pertains to.

                    We are not free to say everything, even with the First Amendment.  

                    There is the "crowded theater" exception, which to me includes "Hey, over here!  Weapons!  Blow these up!  Right here!!"

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:54:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You realize that the "crowded theater" exception (0+ / 0-)

                      came from a case where someone was convicted of speaking out against the draft in WWI. And that it was later overturned. We'll see where this case goes, but I'm betting it gets overturned as well. The first amendment is very broad despite the attempts of many like you to limit it to what they want it to be.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:40:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't belong (0+ / 0-)

                        in the "many of you" category.

                        In a world where anyone can call themselves a journalist, I don't believe in absolutes.

                        I have stated one exception.  ONE.  Don't feel free to tell everyone about where our weapons are, or how many there are, etc.

                        That is the statute the feds are using in these cases.

                        It's a stretch in this particular one.

                        Yes, very broad.  Extremely broad.  About as broad as you can get.  Just not absolute.

                        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                        by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You missed the point there (0+ / 0-)

                          The crowded theater exception is not in fact an exception. You might want to make it illegal for people to share information you don't think they should share, but that is still protected under the first amendment, or should be. He had no legal reason that he couldn't share this info, none. You just don't like that he did. You want an arbitrary set of circumstances to define when the first amendment doesn't apply, so yes, you are one of those people.

                          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                          by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:15:04 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                            The First Amendment is not absolute.  

                            Perhaps it "should be" protected under the First Amendment, but the law currently carves out a specific set of instances where it's illegal to leak information AND illegal to then disseminate the leaked information.

                            Now, if you hate the law, that's fine, but Holder et al did not break new ground by using it.  

                            In a world where a journalist actually whines to Jay Carney because the press wasn't allowed in when Obama spoke to his campaign staff and then the mean old White House put the video on YouTube, I'm not sure I have a problem with laws specifying you can't tell a journalist where our weapons are and the journalist can't report where they are without breaking the law.

                            The law is very specific, not an "arbitrary set of circumstances".  

                            There already are codified exceptions to the First Amendment.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            In no way am I advocating an ad hoc approach to the First Amendment.  If you had any idea of my background you might hear what I'm actually saying and not hear what is not there.

                            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                            by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:28:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, which of those on the list (0+ / 0-)

                            does this fall under? I bet you can't tell me.

                            In no way am I advocating an ad hoc approach to the First Amendment.  If you had any idea of my background you might hear what I'm actually saying and not hear what is not there.
                            You're advocating for a new exception based on no rule that you've explained. None of the exceptions to the first amendment cover this issue. None.
                            I'm not sure I have a problem with laws specifying you can't tell a journalist where our weapons are and the journalist can't report where they are without breaking the law.
                            Here's the thing, it is illegal to tell a journalist where certain weapons are, assuming that's it's classified information. That isn't under dispute. It's illegal to leak classified information, full stop. That means the person who leaked this did something illegal. What they are trying to charge the journalist with is not leaking information or telling people where the weapons were. They are charging him with abetting the leaker. That means that this would in no way be restricted only to people who leak information about weapons' locations, not at all. If this is upheld then it could be applied to any journalist who publishes classified information. That's the issue here.

                            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                            by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:46:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Rosen's leaker isn't a whistleblower either. (0+ / 0-)

                Despite the diarist's and her supporters' efforts to conflate the Rosen leaker's actions with the actions of "whistleblowers".

            •  cfm said that Rosen allegedly offered the guy a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc

              job at a "think tank," which is undisclosed (I really would like to know the name of the think tank), which is a bribe.

              Instead of getting mad at people who legitimately are concerned about the precedent set by charging him merely with soliciting information, which is legal and should remain so, why don't they charge him for bribing a government official if they believe he did so, which is illegal, no  matter what your job ostensibly is...butcher, baker, candlestick maker, journalist....?

              The DOJ bungled this case.  Don't get angry with people who are right about how the way the DOJ snooped into journalists' phone records and Rosen's e-mails did harm Freedom of the Press.  Get angry with the prosecutors at DOJ, who went about this alleged case of spying/bribing all wrong, in such a way that would impinge on all journalists' right to do their jobs.

              If Rosen offered a bribe, charge him with bribery, not soliciting information.

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:43:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Jeremy Scahill, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BradyB, jrooth

              Matt Taibbi, Jane Mayer, Dana Preist, Michael Hastings -- and I haven't mentioned one HACK who reports for television.

              Scahill, in particular, risks his life to keep us informed about our drone policy in Yemen/Saudi Arabia.

              Taibbi was on top of the financial crisis like none of his peers.

              Mayer is responsible for dissecting Cheney's torture policies and telling the world about them.

              Priest won a Pulitzer for her series on America's Security State expansion.

              Hastings was responsible for showing the craven cynicism of the military endeavor in Afghanistan which led to the downfall of a general.

              I'm not surprised that you can't name one journalist.

              •  my apologies to them - i was thinking of (0+ / 0-)

                broadcast media, not print.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:02:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  edrie... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BradyB

                  ...believe it or not, I sympathize -- to a certain degree -- with your position.

                  Not every leak is a case of whistleblowing.  Not all journalists are of equal caliber or without political bias.  And yes, even some legitimate whistleblowers come with baggage.

                  These points, while valid (yes, I said there is some validity to the points you make), they are ultimately incidental to the greater freedom being abridged.  Namely, and this is pretty irrefutable, the government can and does classify information for myriad reasons -- and one of the most common reasons isn't to defend national security, but to hide corruption and sweep embarrassment under the rug.  

                  Not in dispute, however, is that until Barack Obama was elected, no single president used the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers (let's not even call them whistleblowers -- let's simply call them leakers).  Nor has there ever been a time when the DoJ spied as thoroughly as this one does on journalists.

                  I don't like it.  It smells BAD and no one would be sitting idly by letting W off the hook were it his administration going to these unprecedented lengths.  What makes it all the worse is that it's a Democratic administration waging this war against transparency.

                  •  correction: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc
                    Not in dispute, however, is that until Barack Obama was elected, no single president used the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers (let's not even call them whistleblowers -- let's simply call them leakers).  Nor has there ever been a time when the DoJ spied as thoroughly as this one does on journalists.
                    should read:

                    Not in dispute, however, is that until Barack Obama was elected, no single president used the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers (let's not even call them whistleblowers -- let's simply call them leakers) as much as his administration has -- twice as many times as all the presidents who have come before him in toto.  Nor has there ever been a time when the DoJ spied as thoroughly as this one does on journalists.

                    •  have you thought about this aspect? (0+ / 0-)

                      prior to obama, the use of the internet was not as volatile.

                      when you google "cyberwar", take a look at some of the links.

                      we are in different times when a clever geek can infiltrate the pentagon and elsewhere.

                      the espionage act was written in 1917 - maybe it really IS time to update it.

                      we are in such a different world than i knew or your parents knew - or, for that matter, my own parents.

                      when you consider the first "pc" was only introduced by ibm in 1974, that there was no "internet" and that the normal computers required clean rooms and airconditioned raised floors and power protectors, the espionage act only was applicable for people secreting hard documents from areas where they were kept.

                      now, everything is in the virtual world stored on pathetically easy to access servers.  we really don't know how to operate in this world yet - but obama's administration is probably the first to be really challenged by "the cloud", the easy access to technology, the new generation of computer-savvy "kids" who have grown up cutting their teeth on the bits and bytes that were foreign to most of us "oldsters".

                      this constant "blaming" of this administration for problems it has faced that no other administration has had to deal with is really a bit unfair.  these are uncharted waters... and, quite frankly, i'd rather a democratic administration navigate them than a neocon/republican/tea party one - wouldn't you?

                      and, as for your comment that the DOJ has "spied" so thoroughly - i think it is a tit for tat operation.  never before have people so freely demanded access to everything by everyone.

                      there are reasons some things are kept in confidence - from your medical records (from the insurers who would previously have dropped you at the slightest sign of illness) to the plans for nuclear weapons.

                      this is just one of the problems we face in today's technological world.  and, this is another...

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:31:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The means of gathering... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nada Lemming

                        ...storing and transferring information may have improved, but it's the RELEASE of that information that is prosecuted...not the means by which the information was received.

                        Daniel Ellsberg stood at a Xerox machine and photocopied thousands of pages of documents and had his young son help him smuggle them out of his office.

                        China cyber-spying on the US is not the same as having someone in the US give secrets to China -- even if they use the internet to transfer those secrets.  No one is arguing that the US shouldn't do everything it can to ensure its computers can't be cyber-attacked by China or any other nation.  Nor are we talking about American cyber-geeks hacking into a CIA computer and handing out state secrets.  

                        THIS DIARY concerns reporters doing their jobs (the old-fashioned way, I maight add) and being spied on by the government.  This isn't the former USSR, ferchrissakes.  This is about the over-reach of the government.  

                        Why is Holder wanting to meet with the Washington bureau chiefs of all the major news outlets if he doesn't feel he has some 'splainin' to do?

                        •  perhaps holder wants to remind the bureau chiefs (0+ / 0-)

                          of the pertainent laws covering release of specifically forbidden information in an attempt to influence policy.

                          perhaps he is meeting with them to remind them they are NOT above the laws of this land.

                          perhaps... just perhaps... he is holding them accountable for their own actions.

                          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                          by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:50:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Riiiiggghhht. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming

                            I'm sure that's what he had in mind -- strong-arming the entire Washington Press establishment.

                            This is actually really scandalous.  Benghazi and the IRS are manufactured scandals and the public knows it, but THIS surveillance of members of the press -- these Star Chamber tactics of indicting reporters as criminal co-conspirators in order to justify getting subpoenas for their personal emails and phone records, this is really shocking and it's not going away.  

                            You're going to see elected Democrats joining in the criticism of the DoJ.  It's not gonna be a few headline seeking Teabggers like Cruz and Paul criticizing the administration.  

                            I'm already seeing hints of it on MSNBC -- pundits usually ready and rearin' to defend the administration are measuring their words very carefully wrt this unfolding drama -- and the final shoe has yet to drop.

                            Messing with leakers is one thing -- not even the press had much to say about that since on man's whistleblower is another man's traitor.  Messing with journalists is something all together different.  Just watch how far the administration concedes on this issue.  Just watch how far the press pushes this issue.  Just watch.

                          •  no, it's NOT surveillance of members of the press. (0+ / 0-)

                            it is an attempt to find out who violated the law - and it is clear that the fox "journalist" who admits in his emails that he is attempting to "influence policy" is not just "reporting" on facts.

                            rosen is NOT a "journalist" by any standard.  he is a partisan hack with an agenda who violated the law.  he is not above the law because he CLAIMS to be a "journalist".

                            we really REALLY need to pick our battles here - carefully pick them.

                            this is not one that we should be supporting!

                            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                            by edrie on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:10:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  edrie... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Rosen was indicted as a co-conspirator because it was the only way a judge would sign off to allow the DoJ to peek into his personal emails.  It was a contrivance and an abuse of prosecutorial power.

                            You may not like Rosen by virtue of where he's employed, but he is a reporter.  

                            I like this:

                            we really REALLY need to pick our battles here - carefully pick them.
                            Someone should whisper those words into Holder's ear the next time his office charges a leaker under the Espionage Act or wants to rifle through a journalist's phone logs and emails.

                            Btw, his days are numbered.  He's a political liability at this point.  Dime to a dollar he'll be stepping down to 'spend more time with his family.'

          •  Journalists solicit information. That's part of (5+ / 0-)

            their job.  

            If they claim a journalist is breaking the law for this, then it sets a precedent which destroys freedom of the press.

            cfm said that Rosen offered him a job at a "think tank" as a bribe for the release of the info.   Do you know anything about that?  Which "think tank"?  

            Thank you.

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:08:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Argh, (0+ / 0-)

              I wish I could take my comments back.

              I am conflating with this story:

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              Still, the government is using a specific statute in support of the affidavit which refers to "munitions", and the judge accepted the argument.

              Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

              by delphine on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:16:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Do you really believe that? n/t (4+ / 0-)
        •  of course (8+ / 0-)

           Anytime a "journalist" outs, reveals or discovers sometime bad about "our guy"(or girl), the so called "journalist" is doing it for purely political reasons, or maybe even because they are racist. They are only real Journalists when they go after the other guys. We must understand the importance of blindly following those who say the right thing, after all if we look the other way, and help defend them long enough, maybe they will actually come through on one or two of those really, really important things they promised us, after all if they are busy defending themselves for these "imagined" wrongs, they will never be able to do the things we want.

             It really is starting to seem to me, that even "our side" is starting to fall farther and farther into the cesspool of the end justifies the means way of thought.

      •  that's the question, innit? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edrie, Quicklund

        i mean, journalists don't and shouldn't enjoy the right to leak classified information as a matter of course. no matter what party is in the WH.

        i've been trying to figure out how rosen's leak was whistleblowing but i'm coming up short.

        anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

        by chopper on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:21:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rosen didn't leak anything (7+ / 0-)

          Absolutely nothing. He reported things that someone else leaked. If you don't understand what's going on maybe you should refrain from speaking so as not to make a fool of your self.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:56:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it isn't and wasn't. it only fits the meme this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna

          diarist continually pushes in her negativity toward the dept of justice.

          if it weren't for her determination to "discredit" the DOJ and anything government, no one would ever make such an assumption as "whistleblower".

          i believe the judge who dismissed her lawsuit against the DOJ summed it up best when he wrote in his opinion that her attempt to sue the DOJ was "punative" and an attempt to seek vindication for her own actions when she turned over sealed court documents to isikoff.

          Radack has not alleged anywhere in the record that DOJ is likely to injure her in the future—or even suggested that this is a possibility. Rather, the request for an injunction appears to have a punitive animus or be based on a generalized desire for vindication.

          See Pl.’s Opp’n at 20 (“a declaration and injunction would redress Ms. Radack’s injury by labeling the Department’s action as what it really was—retaliation.”).

          [p.8]

          i've been challenged by some who consider my comments  a "personal attack" on the diarist - it isn't.  my criticisms are of her distortion of facts and is actually in accordance with the standards and principles of journalism i learned in the 80s having the opportunity to be in the newsroom at cbs.

          in an attempt to bring balance to the one-sided positions she constantly pushes on this site and other place, i have been researching the background of ms radack and am disturbed by the constant improper conclusions she reached (both while working at the doj and here on this site).

          ONLY when full disclosure of FACTS are given is it possible to make informed decisions and reach reasonable conclusions.  

          as for this diarist (who is a public figure with an agenda and, thusly, her motives SHOULD be questioned) i hate seeing this site being manipulated to push her own agenda.  it serves no one when we waste time supporting, defending, arguing against false and manufactured issues.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:21:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, apparently "journalism" is saying and doing (18+ / 0-)

        what the White House approves, no matter what that might be.

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's so much easier to talk about Rosen (12+ / 0-)

        than about the AP, isn't it? If you want evidence of a slippery slope, you've got it in Technicolor right in front of you.

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I guess the thing I am having trouble with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy

        is the concept that reporters are above the law whenever they claim to be collecting news.  The First Amendment has always had limitations and has never been absolute.  Is there a line that should not be crossed?  If so, what is it?  Did Rosen cross it?  If the answer to my first question is "yes," then how should the DOJ go about answering the other two?  Don't they have the obligation to investigate further if there appears to be a violation of the law?  Or does a press pass equal a "get out of jail free" card?

        I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

        by ccyd on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:10:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think anyone is saying that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vetwife, 3goldens
          does a press pass equal a "get out of jail free" card?

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:47:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'd be more sympathetic to this view (5+ / 0-)

          if our government didn't cloak so much of what it does in our names in secrecy.  If there were real reform of the classification system that reduced the amount of material hidden to maybe 5% of what is hidden now, it'd be a different story.  But until then I choose to err on the side of protecting journalists from pretty much any claims of criminality.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:50:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, that's b/c there's nobody on the other (9+ / 0-)

      side who is capable of holding them accountable.

      Given what the crazy shitheads on the other side are like and that they constantly undermine their own credibility by their hyperpartisan disregard for their country and the truth and their subsequent predilection for asking the wrong questions, it's not surprising that despite ample evidence of what's wrong with Holder, I said what's wrong with Holder, that  the absence of a conscientious opposition that actually cares about the country would free Holder up to act with impunity more or less indefinitely.

      That is not to give a free pass to the Congressional Democrats who should have been holding the members of their own party accountable long since.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hadn't thought of it that way: (9+ / 0-)

        That Repubs ridiculous circus atmosphere effectively inoculated many dems to brazenly carry out dangerous policies, particularly in the DOJ.

        Interesting. Agree, Holder has proven ineffective, at best, at worst? We'll see, needs to go.

        Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

        by 4CasandChlo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:27:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I still don't know why the entire rest of the (7+ / 0-)

          caucus acts like whipped dogs when it comes to Obama. Are they scared of OFA, or his donor list, or his surveillance apparatus, or what?

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:37:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Could be some sort of "esprit de corps" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SouthernLiberalinMD, AoT, 3goldens

            Perhaps it is that they are so taken back, offended, shocked, whatever word you want to put on it, by the disdain for normal governance shown by McConell, Boehner and all, that they figuratively huddle together as "victims" and never really sort out between themselves what the fuck they really need to do.

            Looking at Reid in the Senate for example, he should have long ago changed the filibuster (it will be changed the moment the repubs have 50 sens, so change it now) and Obama is giving tepid support, at best.

            Obama needs to throw his entire weight into the broken Congress instead of whining from the sidelines - if he starts to do that, perhaps the dem congress will start becoming more involved in the administration.

            Shit, I don't know. DOJ, however, is completely f'd up at this point and it is time to start cutting some losses. Cong. Dems need to tell Obama, that they will help get him through this if Holder is gone AND Obama gets more involved in legislative effort.

            I'm just writing out of my ass now. . . oh well, maybe a little heat is exactly what is needed to wake the WH up.

            Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

            by 4CasandChlo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:53:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not enough info leads to rational people (6+ / 0-)

              talking out their ass with the best guesses they can make based on the best info they've got.  Which is one reason why it would be a good idea to have a real free press, so we could have more real info. Without one, we do the best we can (don't beat yourself up, IOW).

              "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:58:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  not the press, so much (4+ / 0-)

      news corps.

      holder's doj and news corps... news corps and holder's doj... it's like one of those movies where two people who should be in love with each other instead keep fighting each other. the doj staffers ought to be nicer to news corps, because some of them might need work in a few years.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:37:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will defend assholes' 1st amendment rights (10+ / 0-)

        If I did it with a bunch of asshole neo-Nazis, I can do it with Rosen.

        "I will defend to the death, etc."

        The pathetic thing is he probably wouldn't do it for me.

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:42:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no question (4+ / 0-)

          he should be working at the doj. or the people responsible for spying on him should be working for news corps.

          i'm so confused.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:48:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A serious question (0+ / 0-)

          Given that free speech under the First Amendment is limited in any number of ways, what limitations exist for freedom of the press under the First Amendment?

          Do we set up a strict scrutiny test, like we do for the freedom of speech?

          I believe that there is a line, but I don't know exactly where it is.

          I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

          by ccyd on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I will let a lawyer or other expert answer this (0+ / 0-)

            if one's about. If no one steps up after a while, I will do my best (according to my best understanding of the law)

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:56:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not an expert, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edwardssl

              Although I am a lawyer, I don't practice in First Amendment law,  so I'm not trying to pass myself off as an expert in this area of the law.  I don't think it is an easy question.  You would probably have to apply the strict scrutiny test I mentioned upthread.  I honestly don't know how it would come out.  A lot would depend on the specific facts of the case.  I've read the affidavit accompaning the application for the search warrant, but I don't know what measures the DOJ used to get the information without the warrant.  The fact that a judge signed off on the warrant does matter, too.

              I think it is easy to get outraged, but I have a suspicion that what the DOJ did in this case was legal.  Whether it was wise is a different question.

              I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

              by ccyd on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:24:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  To my knowledge (0+ / 0-)

            The line is pretty similar to that of speech, and often is exactly the same. Libel and incitement are both restricted but other than that it's pretty much fair game.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:21:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Corporate Journalist: Trust Us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      That doesn't seem to be flying for the Iraq War cheerleaders any better. Journalism died when practitioners stopped reporting news, giving preference to their bosses opinions or their own.

    •  I'm unfamiliar with Rosen. How is he a creep? (0+ / 0-)

      I'd like to learn more.  What type of journalism does he do?  

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:53:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who knew that anon could reach so deeply?...nt (8+ / 0-)

    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:05:01 AM PDT

  •  Holder's position is now untenable (10+ / 0-)

    he has to go and if he doesn't we need to remember how we railed against Gonzalez who's offenses, though very serious, actually pale in comparison.

    •  Well, most of them. (6+ / 0-)

      The torture memo doesn't exactly pale in comparison to anything, though I suppose you could counter by saying the justification of the "kill list" is worse. Once you get to that level of badness, I pretty much cease to make moral distinctions--it's like asking how far down the cliff you've fallen. If you're in freefall and the ground is below you, it doesn't much matter how much distance you've got left to fall.

      Unless of course you inhabit a Marvel comic book, in which case Ironman will swoop in in his amazing suit and catch you before you hit the ground. :-)

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:31:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  off topic - check your kos mail eom (0+ / 0-)

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:43:56 AM PDT

  •  A creeping sense of remorse? (14+ / 0-)

    Jesus Christ, is this the government or a confessional?

    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:00:39 AM PDT

  •  And yet again, more anonymous leaks every (15+ / 0-)

    time the Administration feels itself to be getting into dangerous narrative waters.

    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:01:15 AM PDT

  •  God forbid Jamie Dimon's emails would be spied on (13+ / 0-)

    Not that I'm advocating that that be done without due process either, of course, but kind of funny how selective the DoJ has been in deciding who to spy on and who to leave free to "create jobs" in that "savvy" way of their's.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:13:09 AM PDT

  •  Will journalists take steps to defend press? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, AoT, shaharazade, 3goldens

    actual title of article

    Will journalists take any steps to defend against attacks on press freedom?

    I don't think so. The constitution and the role of the press in the constitution is so quaint.

    Why should journalists who cover the US government continue to work so hard to protect and serve the interests of government officials who are prosecuting their sources, invading their communications, calling them criminals, and attacking basic press freedoms? As even Bob Woodward, the ultimate establishment journalist, said on MSNBC, reporters can begin to say: "why the hell should I go to the government [about my stories], they're just going to go after my records?"
    mindset of journalists is that they are part of the team
    As long as that mindset festers, then it's very difficult to imagine the US press corps taking any meaningful steps to push back against these attacks. And as long as that's true, it's very hard to see why the Obama administration would possibly stop doing it. It's always in the interest of political leaders to control the flow of information and to punish those who make them look bad. That's why there is a free press guarantee in the First Amendment. If journalists aren't willing to protect it, why would anyone else?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
  •  are these anonymous leakers being hunted down so (12+ / 0-)

    they can be charged under the Espionage Act?

    Or does that only happen to the leakers that the people in power don't like.

  •  See Media Matters on the reporting on this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, shaharazade

    from today....CNN, of course, muddled things, but the article is worth reading for what's going on:

    http://mediamatters.org/...

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:46:49 AM PDT

  •  thanks for the article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO

    I appreciate it

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:48:23 AM PDT

  •  There is a difference between... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, Gary Norton, Quicklund

    investigating a whistle-blower (someone exposing crime/corruption) and someone revealing classified information that could jeopardize a source.  I know you are against all things Obama, but you do have to see the difference, don't you?

    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. Albert Einstein

    by kharma on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:49:48 AM PDT

  •  This is Hilarious. Mr. Gonsalves and Mr. Holder (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, happymisanthropy

    seem to be both similarly inept.  Mr. Holder needs badly go to the same place .... out da door.  

  •  Uh-huh! (3+ / 0-)

    Exactly this

    If the anonymous government official is right, the easiest way to prove it would be for the Justice Department to cough up the records of the "certified mail, facsimile, and e-mail" it sent to Rosen and News Corp. If the Justice Department is struggling to locate the records, it could check with the National Security Agency, which, as my client Bill Binney has repeatedly warned, is in the business of collecting and storing Americans' electronic communications for the past decade.
    Fascinating how the DOJ (let alone the WH Press office) can never seem to answer standard questions about "leaking" due to "ongoing national security concerns" (or "investigations" or the like), yet they have so many leakers in their own midst....

    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

    by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:34:57 AM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Nada Lemming

    to just have a real policy of supporting whistle blowers?   Just have an open door and tell workers if they have a problem or see something wrong, they can report it without fear of recrimination.

    I don't get it. The whole thing is baffling. What's the harm in working with the whistle blower system?  Fighting it and illegally spying on people just seems like a colossal waste of time and resources.

    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

    by Betty Pinson on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:52:15 AM PDT

    •  that system already exists. (5+ / 0-)

      You report "wrongdoings" to the proper channels without Fear of retribution.  But if you go outside the whistleblower system to just release info to the public at large, so that you take it upon yourself to decide what is Safe to reveal and what is not, then you risk prosecution for leaking classified info.

      Now here's a question for you: What possible good came from Rosen's soliciting and reporting info regarding our North Korea insider?  Particularly when Rosen's emails state that his goal in doing so was to push the administration in a neocon direction vis-à-vis North Korea?  This was not whistleblowing and no wrongdoing was being reported.  Why do progressives support Rosen and why do you defend Rosen's leaker in the same way you'd defend a real whistleblower?

      •  I'll answer that one ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming
        Why do progressives support Rosen and why do you defend Rosen's leaker in the same way you'd defend a real whistleblower?
        For the same reason I strenuously defend the right of neo-Nazis, the KKK and the like to publicly demonstrate (even though their views are disgusting to me and their public protests are often deeply hurtful to some.)  Because if we want to have a truly free and open society we have to err on the side of freedom in every instance.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:09:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Repubs have tried to destroy Holder for months (7+ / 0-)

    if not years. Issa hates his guts. That should give pause to everyone here. I can understand the frustration about the DoJ not prosecuting the biggest banks. However, I think people should be careful. Holder is rebuilding the Justice Departement, and is doing a pretty good job. Why are republicans so eager to attack Holder?

    As for the controversies about the press and "leakers"...  in both cases ( AP/Yemen and FOX/North Korea), we're dealing with republican operatives within government who are leaking matters of national security to journalists who happily publish the info. At least in the Rosen case, we know that the "journalist" publishing the info has a POLITICAL agenda.

    Freedom of the press ?  VERY important.  Helping whistle blowers and exposing wrong doing ? Very important too. But conspiring for blowing up the cover of  intelligence assets and intelligence operations is another matter. The FBI and the Attorney general have every reason to be concerned and to act.

    Republicans have used obstructionism to block President Obama's agenda in domestic affairs. In foreign policy, the President has more power and freedom to pursue his agenda . How can republicans hurt him on FP?  A great way is to use the leaking of intelligence operations, so the ability of President Obama to work with partners will be jeopardized.

    What's going on now isn't just about "freedom of the press". Let's look at the big picture...

    •  If that's the case (5+ / 0-)

      Then the Obama Admin needs to develop a more open and accessible means of letting the public know what's going on.  

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

      by Betty Pinson on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:55:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The public doesn't give a sh*t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tony Situ, BenderRodriguez, Quicklund

        This is all ideological with help from the Beltway. Yet another instance where fringe Left and fringe Right demonstrate they really are functionally the same.

        The public's priorities are things like jobs and issues they feel directly impact them. Most of the public couldn't tell you who Eric Holder is much less what office he holds.

        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

        by sebastianguy99 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:39:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't insult average voters (0+ / 0-)

          People in this country may be preoccupied with economic problems, just trying to get by, but don't think for one minute they're not entitled to know what their government is doing and whether its behaving in a legal and ethical manner.

          I certainly hope your POV isn't reflected in the current administration or in the majority of its most ardent supporters.  If so, the Democratic Party has some real problems it needs to address.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

          by Betty Pinson on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:17:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes because a personal dig at me demonstrates (0+ / 0-)

            ...that you are correct. Yet another characteristic both fringe groups share.

            I have to say the narcissism in your post is quite stunning. It really is all about ego isn't it. The idea that you not only know what is best for people but that you will also deliver it to them sounds oddly familiar. Oh yes, must save the people from "big government".

            Keep putting that black face up on the teevee screen and telling folks it is the face of evil. I'm sure you can scare up sooner or later. Perhaps they will even thank you for entitling them to know things they hadn't ask to know.

            By the way, we all are the government. It is corrupt as long as we are corrupt. So when you talk as you do, you only point the finger at yourself. It will cease to be corrupt when we so desire it. Until such time, we continue to make as much progress as possible without excuses.

            The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

            by sebastianguy99 on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Of course they do (0+ / 0-)

          and they have a right to know what's going on.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

          by Betty Pinson on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:30:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  And now Holder has given them ample (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming

      ammunition to do it with! Awesome!

      That's what happens when someone powerful is gunning for you and then you do some stupid unconstitutional craptastic bullshit where they can see it.

      Did anybody think the Republicans were sufficiently honest to not attack Holder for doing what their own guys did under Bush?

      All your comment points out is that, in addition to being bad policy, this was also stupid clunk-headed politics.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:23:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also your distinction between whistleblowers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      420 forever, Nada Lemming

      and leakers in relation to Obama administration policy is not pertinent, as the Obama administration certainly has not "helped whistleblowers" by any measure I can think of.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:24:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was talking about the press. (0+ / 0-)

        The press shouldn't be attacked for publishing information given by whistle blowers about some wrong doing.

        But participating, and even actively working, like Rosen did, to leak some national security info is another matter. The press has rights but also has responsibilities.

        •  I'm not sure I find this distinction meaningful (0+ / 0-)

          in any "pragmatic" political way, since the Obama administration treats whistleblowers and leakers the same--unless the leakers in question are leaking Obama administration talking points.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 30, 2013 at 04:10:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Jesselyn, once again I have to point out.... (9+ / 0-)

    ... First, we are talking about a Subpoena, not a search warrant.

    Second, we are talking about subpoena's for the records held by GOOGLE corp, not Fox News, not News Corp, not the Reporter. The email storage and record of transactions belongs to GOOGLE, not the Fox reporter.

    There is absolutely NO LEGAL PRIVACY RIGHT extending to these records held by GOOGLE. The contract agreed to by the reporter and/or News Corp to use GMail contains provisions regarding this situation.

    Third, if the reporter refused to assist the DoJ in the investigation of the leak, it is reasonable to consider the reporter a co-conspirator. What else would you call it? Just because you are a reporter does NOT give you immunity to freely assist a person(s) involved in a Federal crime.

    Fourth, the specific case at hand is one where the exposure that the US had inside information on North Korean military/diplomatic strategy could compromise potential intelligence sources and methods.

    We do not know HOW the US came to know this information, do they have a mole in the NK military or government? Do we have some codes cracked and freely intercept NK communications? Etc, etc.... we don't know, you don't know. But it is NOT unreasonable to assert the North Koreans finding out about our knowledge could compromise those sources and methods.

    You and I don't "know" the motivation for the leak, it could be anything, from another overzealous person thinking the people should know what a great job they are doing, to an NK mole in our own government trying to get word back home to WATCH OUT the US has a mole. We just don't know.

    Would you rather the DoJ and US military just ignore the whole thing and hope for the best, or investigate the incident to determine what is actually going on here?

    There is simply nothing "unreasonable", let alone illegal, about the actions of the DoJ in this matter. It is not even "chilling", what prey tell did anyone involved in the story THINK was going to happen? When you toss a rock in a hornet's nest, and they come out looking to sting someone, how is that "chilling". It should send the message that if you are going to throw rocks at nests, it better be worth it because you may very well get stung.

    Yet many are reacting as if this were a witch hunt inside the Soviet Politburo to silence whistle blowers. It isn't, and if this were Uncle Joe instead of AG Holder.... the reporter, Roger Ailes, Murdoch, and the leaker would all be taken out back and SHOT instead of issuing subpoena's.

    I just don't understand the outrage. Would it be better if the DoJ just ignore these incidents and let intelligence sources and methods be compromised to the point where the US is blind and deaf in critical areas like North Korea and AQ, so some random idiot can leak information and reporters have some cool shit to write about?

    •  Bullshit there's no right to privacy (0+ / 0-)

      For your gmail account. That's absolutely and factually wrong and unless you have a legal case you can site saying otherwise then I suggest you take back that claim.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:31:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read your terms of service that you... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gary Norton

        ... hit the "AGREE" button for.

        •  You have no clue what the right to (0+ / 0-)

          Privacy entails. The fact that they had to get a subpoena means that there is a right to privacy. Of course there are innumerable practical issues around unencrypted email and privacy, but that doesn't mean the legal right in respect to government action is null.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:52:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You would find that, neither the reporter nor (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pluto, edwardssl, Quicklund, AoT, jrooth

            News Corp have any standing in court to oppose that subpoena. Because they have no ownership of or privacy right to, the data held by Google Corp.

            Ditto goes for your cell phone and internet ISP companies.

            A subpoena is simply the legal mechanism for asking for information in a legal case.... civil or criminal. You don't call them on the phone and say "hey, can I have X?". You issue a subpoena, that is the "asking" in context.

            The only place where your communications are actually protected and considered a part of "your effects" is mail with the USPS. Not FedX, not UPS. The USPS is built right into the Constitution. This is the reason it is a Federal crime for someone to open or tamper with your mail, even the Federal government. That is why a SEARCH WARRANT is required to get access to your USPS mail.

            There are no such protections for private corporate services, FedX, or Google, or Yahoo, or Hotmail, of a storage unit, or a locker at the bus station.

            Corporate policy can put some constraints in place, such as requiring a COURT ORDERED subpoena... one issued by the court, because the one from the  random "lawyer" was refused.  Google's policy is this, which is why the DoJ had to go before a judge and get the judge to sign the subpoena making it court ordered.... this is to keep millions of random idiots from just mailing subpoena's to the corporation, it separates nuisance inquiries from serious ones.... the judge is the filter. But this is NOT a search warrant, which is very specifically different under the 4th amendment. To get the reporters personal notes and papers from his desk, the DoJ would need a search warrant issued by a judge, upon probable cause. Not so for a subpoena of data held by a third party like Google in this case.

            The smart thing, 40 years ago, would have been for the USPS to open up an EMail service, provide encrypted clients, and those communications would fall under the same established protections as written mail. There stil could have been private corporations like AOL and Yahoo, but our nation and people would have an up to date protected communications mechanism that preserved Constitutional privacy rights.

            Anytime the people of the US want to go ahead and implement that, do it. The USPS can be expanded and enhanced into the 21st century any time we choose to, just do it.

            But when the reality of what we have allowed to happen around us comes home to roost.... don't get made at me for informing you, instead look in the mirror.

          •  for some reason I can't rec your comment (0+ / 0-)

            but consider it rec'd.

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:19:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, no, you cite your authorities. (5+ / 0-)

        If The Jester is wrong, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate it.

        In a practical sense, your Gmail account and "privacy" doesn't belong in the same sentence. Google, has access to all of it. They have already had to fire someone for prying.

        Here are some tips from EFF about webmail. You might find their advice informative and adjust accordingly.

        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

        by sebastianguy99 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:49:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He made the claim, he needs to support it (0+ / 0-)

          And the fact that the government needed a subpoena to get the info shows there was a privacy issue.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:57:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, I think the privacy being protected (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edwardssl, Quicklund

            was Google's--they won't give up any info unless forced to do so out of their own concern about the information they keep, not the individual user's.

            http://itlaw.wikia.com/...

            In a related issue, the police have been allowed to read text messages off of a cell phone without a warrant, as there is no expectation of privacy in electronic communication.

            To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

            by dizzydean on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:48:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, there is a right to privacy. But they did (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        have a subpoena, right? So they didn't really violate it.

    •  it is jesselyn radack you're talking about here... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Jester

      and any excuse she has to twist the truth to attack the dept of justice is just that - an excuse.

      she has an axe to grind and she keeps on grinding away here on this site, ad nauseam.

      and, the sad part is that so many people take the bait when she throws out these false allegations.

      she "is" a lawyer - she damned well knows the difference, but she doesn't seem to let that bother her in her personal vendetta against the doj.

      i've posted several comments above quoting the judge who dismissed her lawsuit against the doj where he states quite clearly that her actions in that case appeared to be "vindication" for her own "wrong-doing".  if she can sufficiently poison the waters that surround the doj, perhaps she thinks it will somehow "vindicate" her in the public eye.

      actually, imho, all it is doing is highlighting how incompetent her behavior was at the doj and how anyone who hires her should be very wary of her "expertise".

      she repeatedly distorts facts and posts outright lies on this sight on a regular basis - and a small cadre of folks are so willing to condemn government at any excuse that she gets the attention she seeks.

      i hate to see this site that USED to be fact-based deteriorating in this manner.

      ct used to be a big no-no - but jesselyn seems to be getting a free pass.  for now.

      as it is with most ct folks, eventually, there is no ct too small or too big to hold in.  time is on the side of the site here.

      my opinion about a "public figure" who HAPPENS to be registered to post here.  

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:00:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey (0+ / 0-)

        You forgot to add that she once posed for Playboy.  You're slipping.  

        Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

        by Nada Lemming on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:33:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  posing for playboy has nothing to do with a lack (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Jester

          of professional ethics as a lawyer.  i don't care if she has been a burlesque queen - that profession is honest, at least.  

          it is the unprofession and unethical and illegal actions she took as an employee of the doj that concern me and  add to that, the deliberate distortion and misrepresentation she does at every opportunity NOT to provide truthful discussion, rather, she seems to do her misleading postings as a vindictive action toward the department where she, and she alone, committed the wrong-doing.

          it wasn't the doj that demanded an investigation into the leaking of the sealed court documents, it was the judge who SEALED the documents - yet, she persists in slamming the doj as somehow being this irresponsible entity when she is the only irresponsible party in her actions there.

          so, as for posing naked, perhaps she would have done better at her job had she been "naked" in her accusations (not meaning without clothes, rather, without deception).

          any further questions?  or would you like me to post further information about her rash and questionable and unethical behavior in her profession.

          i do not trust anyone who is not truthful.  i do not trust anything that jesselyn radack has to say BECAUSE she is not truthful!

          i hope this clarifies my position on this person.

          again, playboy - absolutely irrelevant to me - but i see YOU brought it up.  do YOU have a problem with it?

          as a 60s flower child myself, i see nothing wrong with the human body.  how about you?  

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:28:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just trying to help (0+ / 0-)

            I just thought your dishonest smear was incomplete.  

            Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

            by Nada Lemming on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:12:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and what about my comments are dishonest? (0+ / 0-)

              the judge's words in his opinion?

              the lawyers who criticize her?

              her actions that got her into trouble in the first place?

              i really think you need to go back and look more closely at this poster and her history - you know, the one that colors everything she writes.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:51:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  did edrie say that before? (0+ / 0-)

          please tell me that you're just stirring shit. please tell me we haven't sunk to the level of Breitbart around here.

          Although Breitbart would have faked a Playboy video.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:21:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, i didn't say that - nada lemming brought it (0+ / 0-)

            up.  to me, that is irrelevant.

            i am a child of the sixties - the "our bodies, ourselves" era - i see nothing wrong with a woman's choice to do what she pleases with HER body - after all, it IS "her" body!

            i loved it when some of the older stars also posed - they were willing to show that age isn't an enemy of beauty.

            and, besides, pb had some of the best political articles in the day... truth spoken!

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 01:52:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

  •  anonymous government official (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Quicklund

    There's nothing ironic [or hypocritical] about anonymous government official/s leaking information about an investigation into govt leaks.

    "Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."-7.75, -5.54

    by solesse413 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:44:00 AM PDT

PhilK, teacherken, glitterscale, Liberal Thinking, karlpk, Shockwave, RFK Lives, 714day, whenwego, Agathena, boadicea, stevej, phillies, Nate Roberts, Beelzebud, NYC Sophia, gerrilea, zerelda, solesse413, kbman, Bluesee, jrooth, run around, marthature, dewtx, YucatanMan, Sun Tzu, Kayakbiker, skyounkin, most peculiar mama, Sandino, WisePiper, peacestpete, Alan Arizona, esquimaux, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, Kingsmeg, triv33, MJ via Chicago, gooderservice, JVolvo, joe shikspack, sceptical observer, Unitary Moonbat, onionjim, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, kurt, shaharazade, bstotts, ZenTrainer, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, tegrat, fiver, One Pissed Off Liberal, SpecialKinFlag, yoduuuh do or do not, Wino, aliasalias, Aunt Martha, bobswern, leonard145b, Don midwest, kimoconnor, Thomas Twinnings, Involuntary Exile, elwior, MrJayTee, No Exit, temptxan, Horsefeathers, rhutcheson, watercarrier4diogenes, CIndyCasella, legendmn, Rhysling, cybrestrike, J M F, divineorder, lostinamerica, Gorilla in the room, JesseCW, petral, UnaSpenser, Words In Action, The Jester, renzo capetti, gulfgal98, Neuroptimalian, ffour, Johnny Q, 4kedtongue, Betty Pinson, DrTerwilliker, MsGrin, Nada Lemming, Shelleyw, sostos, lamplighter, thomask, muddy boots, KVoimakas, enhydra lutris, bluedust, PhilJD, Willa Rogers, Mentatmark, SouthernLiberalinMD, Auriandra, No one gets out alive, quill, mwcjim, cwsmoke, greenbastard, SamanthaCarter, Joieau, 420 forever, 2thanks, Mr Robert, lunachickie, BradyB, Chaddiwicker, Sarah Damian, jbob, CharlesInCharge, MarEng, Greenbrier33

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site