Skip to main content

Based upon this story being mentioned in dozens of posts within this community, it’s safe to say that you probably recall the dust-up over the past couple of weeks regarding the DoJ’s surveillance of Fox News national security reporter James Rosen, right?

To refresh your memory, here’s a link to Kossack Jesselyn Radack’s follow-up coverage on the story. As you’re about to learn, once again, Ms. Radack was spot on — despite a cacaphony of very serious Kossacks not-so-nicely claiming otherwise, and insisting that our government lock the door and throw away the key due to Rosen’s simply treasonous behavior.

(You really should give Ms. Radack’s post, from this past Wednesday morning, a read.)

The nerve of some journalists actually attempting to obtain a scoop, many here exclaimed (perhaps in not as many words—no links provided)! Other Kossacks insisted that this latest DoJ effort made our government’s surveillance of AP phone records in Hartford, NY and D.C., first reported just two weeks earlier, look mild in comparison.

While it remains to be officially viewed as such by the DoJ, apparently, the entire matter with Fox News Reporter James Rosen was just a mistake, or so we’re now to believe, based upon this “breaking news” and clarification from the DoJ via Reuters over the past hour. (FYI: This is not snark.)

U.S. prosecutors never sought to charge reporter - Justice Dept
Reuters
June 3 | Mon Jun 3, 2013 3:53pm EDT

WASHINGTON

(Reuters) - Prosecutors who investigated a leak of secret U.S. information about North Korea never sought to file criminal charges against a Fox News reporter who acquired and reported the information, the Justice Department said on Monday.

Peter Kadzik, a deputy assistant attorney general, explained prosecutors' reasoning in a letter† to Republican lawmakers who last week said they were concerned about the FBI describing the reporter, James Rosen, as a co-conspirator in the case…


#            #            #

UPDATE (starts here):

†=Here's the LINK to the Justice Department's letter (courtesy of Politico).

And, here's more from Politico's Josh Gerstein, all within the past hour...

Justice Department letter defends Eric Holder testimony
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Politico.com
6/3/13 4:48 PM EDT

The Justice Department has issued a new defense of Attorney General Eric Holder's Congressional testimony last month on investigations of journalists, sending a letter to two House leaders who complained that Holder appeared to have misled lawmakers at a May 15 hearing.

The letter from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik doesn't add much to the sum total of knowledge about why prosecutors named Fox News reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator in order to get a search warrant for his email in a leak investigation. It also reflects statements DOJ made last week arguing that labeling Rosen that way was not at odds with Holder's statement to the House Judiciary Committee that he'd never even "heard of" the possibility of prosecuting a journalist...

UPDATE ends here.

#            #            #

In the words of Gilda Radner (portraying her Saturday Night Live character Emily Litella)…

Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Emily Litella Moment”

It will certainly be interesting to see how this story plays out from this point, won’t it? “Forward!”

Seriously folks, does it get any more pathetic than this? Why, yes!  Yes it does!

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

  •  So using the term "co-conspirator" (13+ / 0-)

    Was just BS to influence the judge?  Can't imagine that's kosher.

    A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

    by MrJayTee on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 02:25:13 PM PDT

  •  Sorta sounds... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, 3goldens, joe shikspack

    ...like a "Clean out your desk before you leave" moment, doesn't it?

  •  See also Taibbi re: SEC (9+ / 0-)

    SEC "Policy" not to investigate Madoff says whistleblower.

    Another fine Dubya legacy...

    Let's face it, all policy has had to pass review for major donor impact no matter who's in charge since at least the 80's; the 90's proved that beyond reasonable doubt.

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

    by LucyandByron on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 02:41:30 PM PDT

  •  Transparency isn't this WH's strong suit (8+ / 0-)

    as I noted elswhere today.   While the attempted intimidation of Rosen is bad in and of itself, it's far worse in context.  While "Change" is an inherently ambiguous concept, I did assume in '08 that it encompassed far greater tranparency than I've seen since.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 02:54:31 PM PDT

    •  Sounds less like change for the better. . . (5+ / 0-)

      It sounds to me like "out with Texas right wing politics and in with Chicago inside politics" and I am not necessarily blaming Obama so much as Holder and Emmanuel.

      But, Obama put them there and he knew better than anyone what he would get. . .

      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 Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 02:58:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's the crus of the issue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, cfm, virginislandsguy

    Holder reportedly said:

    “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.
    Regarding request for search warrant:
    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.
    1. Holder disclaims knowledge, and even expresses disapproval, of the idea of prosecuting a reporter for disclosing information. That would be separate question from what he knows/thinks about prosecuting reporters for pressuring sources to give them classified info.

    2. For a little extra quibble room, it is true that a search warrant is not prosecution, and does not mean prosecution is inevitable.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:11:52 PM PDT

  •  what "Rosen prosecution"? (6+ / 0-)

    He's not being prosecuted.   Do you really not know the difference between a search warrant and an indictment?  

    It's kinda hard for the DOJ to explain something that never happened.  

    "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

    by Inland on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:17:15 PM PDT

    •  Well, that would appear to be the way this is... (5+ / 0-)

      ...now being framed, wouldn't it? (i.e.: "What Rosen prosecution?") Then again, weren't you just clamoring for Rosen's head on a pike the other day?

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:26:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's not being prosecuted. (4+ / 0-)

        It's not a question of "framing". It's about you being just plain wrong, and as a result not understanding the DOJ.

        "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

        by Inland on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:31:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Explain to everyone where I'm "being wrong?" (4+ / 0-)

          Aside from an ad hom--your usual m.o.--what have you got here? I'm reporting this story.

          For the record, when the FBI describes someone as a "co-conspirator" in a case, that tends to lend itself to the concept that law enforcement is looking at options relating to prosecuting the individual. And, much of the coverage of this story, to date, certainly supports this truth. Now, whether or not they will prosecute him is the question where we've arrived, to date. But, of course, you'll attempt to make the history of this story out to be something completely to the contrary. Like I just asked you in the previous comment: Weren't you onboard with those in this community clamoring for Rosen's head on a pike over the past couple of weeks? (Rec'ing up comments and articles relating to such?) If not, then please accept my apology in advance.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:40:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Jesus. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            virginislandsguy

            There is no Rosen prosecution.  What part of that is so complicated?  It's not an ad hom to say you're wrong, either.

            "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

            by Inland on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:48:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The INVESTIGATOR, not PROSECUTOR, described (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FiredUpInCA

            Rosen as a possible co-conspirator. Actual wording:

            ... I believe there is probable cause to conclude that the contents of the wire and electronic communications pertaining to the SUBJECT ACCOUNT, are evidence, fruits and instrurnentalities of criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 793 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), and that there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of section 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co--conspirator, to which the materials relate.
            Page 3 of Warrant Application

            In my opinion Rosen should be charged, but he wasn't, if the AP behaved the same way (cultivated their source) they too should be charged (that case was actually much worse). But I suspect that in the Yemen story, if it ever comes out, it will be about someone with just too much information, wanted to seem like someone and blabbed when they shouldn't. That story killed a real-live operation.

            •  It's actually pg 4 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bobswern, joe shikspack
              •  Picky, picky, pg 4 of the linked PDF, pg 3 of app. (0+ / 0-)
              •  The "investigator" didn't file the warrant app... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJayTee, SamanthaCarter

                ...the prosecutors did. Semantics used to obfuscate the realities of this story need to be called out for what they, indeed, are.

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:13:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Umm, not what the document says... (3+ / 0-)

                  Cover page (the actual application form) is signed by Agent Reyes, the first page of his Affidavit says:

                  APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
                  I, Reginald B. Reyes, being first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows:

                  I. INTRODUCTION

                  1. I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation assigned to the Washington Field Office, and have been employed by the FBI for over five years.

                  This warrant application was filed by Agent Reyes and signed by a Magistrate. There is no evidence of a US Atty being involved in the production of the document. The lead Atty would have probably been consulted, but the words are all (by his signature and sworn deposition) Agent Reyes'.
                  •  More semantics? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MrJayTee
                    "The lead Atty would have probably been consulted..."

                    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                    by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:30:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  NBC via HuffPo, May 23rd... (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MrJayTee, Joieau, SamanthaCarter, valion, kurt

                    ...linked HERE...

                    Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen's personal email, NBC News' Michael Isikoff reported Thursday.

                    The report places Holder at the center of one of the most controversial clashes between the press and the government in recent memory. The warrant he approved named Rosen as a "co-conspirator" in a leak investigation, causing many to warn that the Justice Department was potentially criminalizing journalism. The warrant also approved the tracking of Rosen's movements in and out of the State Department, as well as his communications with his source, Stephen Kim.

                    The Justice Department later said that it did not intend to press any charges against Rosen...

                    Bold type is diarist's emphasis.

                    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                    by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:36:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  This May 24th Roland Martin story spells out... (7+ / 0-)

              ...far too many greater truths which undermine folks scrambling for spin to obfuscate what happend just days ago...it's all there...memorialized...and within this community, too...just going right of the cliff of administration spin....

              From Roland Martin...please note the last sentence of the blockquote, below (which I've highlighted in bold type)...the "tone" and FACTS relating to this story were quite different than some of the bullshit being parsed as everyone goes into full-blown damage control...let the semantics and double-speak continue...but, it IS what it IS...

              ...Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on the decision to seek the personal emails of a Fox News reporter by suggesting he was a “co-conspirator” in a criminal leak case, the Department of Justice confirmed in a statement on Friday.

              The department “took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General,” the DOJ said in a statement about the search warrant seeking James Rosen’s emails.

              The government is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department official who is accused of giving Rosen, a reporter for Fox, classified information. The DOJ treated Rosen as a “co-conspirator” and told a judge it was considering charges against him in an effort to get his emails...

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:05:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, come on! All the DoJ did (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pluto, BradyB, bobswern

                Was tell a judge they thought he was a co-conspirator in National Security case related to North Korea and they were considering charges against him.  

                How could anyone get "prosecution" out of that?

                Seriously, bobswern, WTF is your damage?

                A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

                by MrJayTee on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:15:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Again, per another comment I made in this... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJayTee

                ...thread, it was a prosecutor that decided what to put in the warrant application, not an "investigator."

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:15:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So Roland Martin has facts and the warrant app (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                virginislandsguy

                is ??? Whomever Roland Martin is he is welcome to couch the story however he likes. That doesn't make his statements facts.

                Even the warrant application (as we're all arguing here) is couched in certain terms. But for purposes of the law, the facts sworn to by the FBI agent, are facts.

                What Mr. Martin put forward is his opinion. Now the FBI, the investigative arm of the DOJ, did term Rosen as a co-conspirator, so in terms of parsing sentences, Martins sentence is accurate. But I believe he is trying to say that "(The Head of the) DOJ (Attorney General Holder) treated Rosen as a ..." But that doesn't seem to be factually correct.

                •  What part of "the PROSECUTOR filed the warrant..." (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SamanthaCarter, BradyB

                  "...application" don't you understand? The prosecutor used information from the investigator to support their application for a warrant. Let me spell it out for you in even greater detail: THE INVESTIGATOR works for the PROSECUTOR. Next round of semantics?

                  "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                  by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:22:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What PROSECUTOR filed the warrant? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    virginislandsguy, FiredUpInCA

                    There wasn't one. Warrant apps are NOT only filed by attorneys. As the first line of the warrant application states"

                    "I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government ... under penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that ..."

                    So your assertion is that an FBI agent perjured himself to cover for the Attorney General or other US Attorney who is hunting James Rosen?

              •  And it isn't Roland Martin's story (0+ / 0-)

                it is Ryan J. Reilly's of the Huffington Post, Martin's is a paragraph by paragraph (but fewer) copy of what HuffPo put out.

                •  Well, it's "Roland Martin Reports" saying (0+ / 0-)

                  Here, look at this story by Reilly of HufPo.

                  I thought you didn't like "picky"?

                  Admit it, we all like "picky".  "Picky" is fun.

                  A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

                  by MrJayTee on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:25:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Please refer to THIS comment, further upthread... (4+ / 0-)

          ...linked RIGHT HERE.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:44:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Kafka...it's what's for dinner!" Bon appetit! n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrJayTee, Burned, joe shikspack

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:45:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What would make anyone think this: (7+ / 0-)
            There is probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation of  section 793(d) as an aider and abettor and or co conspirator to which the materials relate.
            Could possibly end up with a reporter being prosecuted?

            A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

            by MrJayTee on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:47:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The intention it seems (6+ / 0-)

              was to get a warrant to investigate Rosen based on his alleged criminal activity, but with no intent to prosecute, only they forgot to say that part because they didn't think they needed to because it's never happened before to their knowledge. Or something like that.

              Lawyer stuff. :) That's why nobody likes them.

              I'm going to go walk my dog and see if she wags her tail or her tail wags her.

              •  LOL! n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJayTee, Joieau

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:16:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The "greater truth" is that (0+ / 0-)

                the tail wagged her.

                There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

                by virginislandsguy on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:57:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Pure judicial abuse (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kurt

                and signed off on personally by Holder.

                Why does this man still have a job?

                You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

                by Johnny Q on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:08:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because he sued Arizona for their "papers please" (0+ / 0-)

                  law, has a record number of hate crimes prosecutions, has a large number of mortgage fraud prosecutions, secured 20 billion dollars from BP, is the first AG to crack down on Medicare fraud, and protected the voters rights in the last election in the face of systematic voter suppression attempts, just to name a few things.  

                  Now, maybe the purist progressives don't give a damn about things like that; maybe they'd rather care more about protecting Rosen's right to out our North Korea inside sources, but I couldn't care less about Rosen's brazen attempt to out our sources in attempt to pressure the administration to adopt neocon policy vis-à-vis North Korea.

            •  It may, and rightfully so, if the evidence (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              virginislandsguy

              produced by the warrant substantiates the suspicion. Apparently, the evidence wasn't sufficient to proceed with prosecution, that's the way the system is supposed to work.

              Reporters don't get a pass, even though they think they should, to break the laws and then ask to be held harmless. If what he is doing is so important, and the tactics he employs are the way to get the story out, well then he ought to man up and take the consequences.

              In the Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg owned up to what he did, and he certainly could have done time, if the DOJ didn't incurably screw up their case. The Times went forward and had to litigate their right to publish.

              Fox seems to want their "journalist" to get off scott-free for what really looks like espionage (but apparently couldn't be proved).

  •  Had the intended effect of shutting down the press (4+ / 0-)

    so now they can back off and try to change the subject

    seen several reports that people are not afraid to talk with the press

    will the press be on this story, which involves their constitutional protection and their legitimacy to tell the truth?

    or will the corporate media go along to get along and further the collapse of journalism?

    it is amazing the important work from Nick Turse about Vietnam (Kill Anything That Moves) with the 2 million people killed and the bombing of indigenous people in Cambodia because we had planes and bombs and could no longer bomb North Vietnam....

    Now we have Jeremy Schaill, a brave and excellent reporter who outed Blackwater and has just put out the book and the movie Dirty Wars

    do all republics end as military empires?

    is there anything that can awaken the sleeping public to who we really are in the world and who we are at home and what our government is doing in our name???

    Holder is a pawn in a larger battle of the corporate coup d'etat that has happened here

    •  I've not see much shutting down of the press (3+ / 0-)

      WSJ, NYT, WaPo, LATimes, Tribune, ... are all publishing, Politico (unfortunately) and Faux and CNN are all going forward, and all chatting about these cases.

      If the job was to chill the press, well it doesn't seem to have worked very well.

      On the other hand if it causes people to stop leaking, well that's probably a feature. If there's something truly bad that needs to come out (a la the Pentagon Papers or Watergate) I don't doubt that someone like Berrigan will come out and take the heat.

      •  William Sloan Coffman in 2005 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        "I never thought that I would live to see the day that old fashioned journalism would be a form of civil disobedience"

        in The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind, page 349

        and that was before the security state was spying on the press and prosecuting them and spying on everyone who talked with the press so that people no longer would speak

        obviously, not everyone has stopped speaking

        look at all the leaks that the administration wants to spread

        and there are some that do talk with the press, but they risk a lot

        look at the whistle blowers who have been prosecuted already which is a supreme act of intimidation

  •  What am I missing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, FiredUpInCA

    Did the USG have an "asset" in the PDRK?

    Did this Mr Kim, a govt employee with access to classified information tell Mr Rosen that the the USG had a person in the PDRK passing information?

    If so, why isn't this a crime?  And further, why isn't Mr Rosen guilty of receiving stolen property?

    Perhaps I'm missing an important bit of the story here, but it looks like Mr Rosen helped to "out" a source in the PDRK, perhaps leading to that person's death, or at the very least, destroying the source's usefulness.

    I'm not sure why Scooter Libby's antics with regard to Valerie Plame produce so much venom on "our" side, while under the < snarkon> "Evil Obama Dictatorship and Murder Regime"< /snarkoff> the poor abused "journalist" (or "receiver of stolen property," alternatively) is the subject of so much concern.

    Apparently we believe that the government has no right to protect information, or at the very least, no right to go after people who receive stolen information in violation of the law.

    This all seems rather preposterous to me, apparently you all think that classified information is a little like an immigrant fleeing Cuba, once the information gets it's feet on the "Florida" of the press, it's home free, that the crime of transferring stolen government property is totally one-sided, the person illegally releasing the information is committing a crime, but the person illegally receiving the stolen property has committed no crime, as a matter of fact, it's a terrible scandal for the government to investigate such a person.

    Do we believe in classification of information?  Do we believe in protecting intelligence assets? If not, we should just say so, so that no one with information our government needs will risk their lives or freedom by helping our information-gathering agencies.

    There's a lot of "conventional wisdom" (read "hot air") about how terrible it is that the government is trying to keep secret information secret, without even a wisp of concern for the people who apparently lost their lives in Yemen because of the leak that the AP "scandal" was about or any concern at all for the Korean person that Mr Kim jeopardized, this is insane nonsense.

    Apparently you all think that once a "journalist" gets a piece of information, it's just "tough shit" for the informant in the foreign country, and "open season" on the government employee who stole the information, but it's "full speed ahead" for the reporter who fenced the info to his newspaper.

    Maybe someone can explain what it is that I don't understand here.

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:58:15 PM PDT

    •  Might be worth backing up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftykook

      to the October 2005 press conference, announcing the indictment of Scooter Libby, for obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements. Not an Espionage Act indictment. See Patrick Fitzgerald's take on that, about two-thirds of the way down.

      It's not a full discussion of the issues. But it's a good enough place to start.

    •  Well then the reporters who broke the Pentagon (0+ / 0-)

      Papers case need to be prosecuted as well (as there is no statute of limitations).  You don't get to have it both ways so therefore Neil Sheehan needs to be prosecuted ASAP.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:41:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When you commit civil disobedience... (0+ / 0-)

        ...you PLAN on going to jail.

        Catholic Religious folks are going there right now, one little old lady probably for life (20 years is a life sentence when you are in yer 80's) why shouldn't Ellsberg and the reporters who received the documents have gone to jail?

        Yeah yeah I know, it's a matter of liberal faith that Ellsberg was a saint who deserved canonization, but he himself said that he expected to go to prison.

        What's it gonna be, anarchy or order?

        The hope of those committing civil disobedience is that they will cause the nation to see the wrong that they are sacrificing their liberty to change, Mario Savio said that there are times when we must place our bodies themselves in the gears to resist tyranny, he wasn't suggesting a mealy mouth pseudo-sacrifice-lite.  

        There's another diary up that describes Reagan and his henchmen as a bunch of traitorous criminals who ALL shudda went to prison for a long time, instead they got pardons and some of them torment our politics to this day, our reluctance to put them away AND demolish their political allies is a major cause of our current slow-motion trainwreck in Washington.

        (No statute of limitations? Really? That sounds odd, at least)

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 05:03:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site