If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Turns out AP wasn't the only news outlet Obama was tapping, FOX News also was spied on. Come on Obama, you just completed the right-wing conspiracy trifecta in just two weeks, At least make it hard for them   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 241
    More: Asinine, right-wing, rosen, press freedom, conspiracy  
•       •       •

6154 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



241 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 11:06:59 AM  

skullkrusher: leaking cocknose


You should probably get that looked at. It sounds serious.
 
2013-05-20 11:07:22 AM  

MFAWG: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!
As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.

the issue is the breadth of the search. The issue is the secrecy behind the search. These are things that do not belong in a free society.
Get the records to nail the leaking cocknose (leaking cocknose?) Do so in a way that protects the privacy of the innocent as much as possible

Clue me in: were the subpoenas issued in secret?


that's the story
 
2013-05-20 11:07:25 AM  
So who is gonna be Obamas deep throat?
 
2013-05-20 11:07:58 AM  

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: leaking cocknose

You should probably get that looked at. It sounds serious.


heh yeah it felt funny coming out of my fingers at the moment
 
2013-05-20 11:08:52 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: PreMortem: . A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


This rationale is dangerous. The DOJ is trying to criminalize investigative journalism. If a leaker brings up a fact to the reporter, and the reporter asks "I need to see evidence of your claim before I run a story on it, can you provide some proof?", the DOJ claims it can prosecute the reporter for inciting the leaker to reveal additional classified information.


I seem to recall one party or the other advocating for shield laws for journalists.
 
2013-05-20 11:12:14 AM  

skullkrusher:
the issue is the breadth of the search.


And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

The issue is the secrecy behind the search.

How secret was it? Who do you feel should have been additionally informed during the investigation?
 
2013-05-20 11:13:10 AM  

skullkrusher: MFAWG: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!
As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.

the issue is the breadth of the search. The issue is the secrecy behind the search. These are things that do not belong in a free society.
Get the records to nail the leaking cocknose (leaking cocknose?) Do so in a way that protects the privacy of the innocent as much as possible

Clue me in: were the subpoenas issued in secret?

that's the story


From where?

I honestly had not heard that.

Not that it changes anything. Faux is still being misleading by using the word 'seized' as opposed to 'subpoenaed' in their headline.
 
2013-05-20 11:16:49 AM  

qorkfiend: cwolf20: So remember.  If you ever decide to give an anonymous tip, fark it.  Let the criminal get away

If you obtained the tip through illegal means, you shouldn't be surprised if law enforcement starts looking into it.

Where did we get the idea that reporting something to the news media somehow confers immunity from prosecution?


Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!
 
2013-05-20 11:19:51 AM  

thetubameister: qorkfiend: cwolf20: So remember.  If you ever decide to give an anonymous tip, fark it.  Let the criminal get away

If you obtained the tip through illegal means, you shouldn't be surprised if law enforcement starts looking into it.

Where did we get the idea that reporting something to the news media somehow confers immunity from prosecution?

Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!


All that means is that your newspaper won't be shut down for publishing an article critical of the government, similarly to how an individual citizen won't be tossed in jail for voicing an opinion critical of the government (usually). "Freedom of the press" does not mean you're immune from being compelled to produce testimony or documents, or from criminal prosecution if the means you use to obtain information break laws.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections, above and beyond those granted to a normal citizen, simply because an organization calls itself "the press"?
 
2013-05-20 11:20:49 AM  

DarnoKonrad: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.


Doesn't make any farking sense.


We weren't mad at the media... we were mad to the administration for punishing someone who (gasp) told the truth by deliberately putting his wife in jeopardy.  That's a wildly different scenario.  In this case, we're mad that the gov't, who farked up, is taking that fark-up out on the free press instead of punishing its own.
 
2013-05-20 11:21:01 AM  
thetubameister:
Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!


Freedom of the Press does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that you have the freedom to pass classified information to the press.
 
2013-05-20 11:22:08 AM  

MFAWG: I seem to recall one party or the other advocating for shield laws for journalists.


The proposed shield law does the exact opposite of what it claims to.
It makes exceptions to protections when "National Security" issues are involved.
it would be horrible for whistleblower/reporter relations.
 
2013-05-20 11:22:08 AM  
So spilling state secrets is okay if your in the "news business"?

Glad to know.
 
2013-05-20 11:23:01 AM  

jaybeezey: SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

I could be wrong, but i believe that the whoel reason that the blah guy was voted in was that he was slinging Hope and Change from the pulpit. He was going to have the most transparent gov't and the flowers would bloom and the world would be right.

Turns out he was this transparent gov't was selling guns to Mexican gangs (and losing them), telling lies about the death of an American ambassador, offering assistance in Lybia to the same people we were fighting in Iraq, dogging those with opposing views with the IRS, watching the media black ops style in an operation of national securty that neither the AG or POTUS new anything about (must have been super serious and important).

I saw all of this to say that all Obama had to do to win some points with people who give a crap about somethign other than getting a check is NOT renew the Patriot Act and he effed that up as well. I had one hope for him and he blew it.

I won't likely vote for another presidential candidate until they promise to NOT renew Patriot Act, cut the TSA, cut DHS.


I disagree with everything you said... except the last sentence, to which I exclaim "Amen!".
 
2013-05-20 11:23:06 AM  
you're damn it you're
 
2013-05-20 11:23:14 AM  

PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


Reading is hard, for you anyway.


You have to remember how warrants are given out after the patriot act.  it's sort of like finding the right doctor when you need your next oxy fix.  Hell, there are even retroactive warrants.
 
2013-05-20 11:23:24 AM  

Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.


it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"
 
2013-05-20 11:23:51 AM  

trotsky: MFAWG: SlothB77: The Dems have found their Nixon.

David Gregory gave Peg Noonan a pretty good slapdown yesterday when she said these were the worst abuses she'd ever seen by pointing out that Pegs used to work for Nixon

Obama so far has not:

Authorized a clown like Gordon Liddy to bungle what should have been an easy break in to the opposition's HQ and the Psychologists office of a press leak. (Nixon didn't hire Liddy, Colson and Hunt did, Liddy's still a clown act though)

Hired Cubans to act as "foot soldiers"

Authorize "Union Thugs" to beat the snot out of Tea Tard protestors in DC

Go on a witch hunt for political purposes.

Expand a war he is trying to wind down

Nixon and Obama did:

Replace nearly all of their cabinet at the second term.

Inspire irrational hatred amongst the opposition ( to be honest though, Nixon's was kind of justified as he was very well known in politics)

Say they are going to end a war. And do exactly that.

Laugh at the opposition and proceed to do exactly what they want anyway.
( I really like McGovern and the '72 race is great because McGovern was a man of principles who refused to compromise to win. Rmoney was a man of absolutely zero principles who would have compromised anything to win)

If I were Obama I would thank the right for comparing him to Nixon. Nixon, despite the dirty tricks, did many good things. Nixon was the last of the good Republicans.


He did escalate Yemen & Pakistan
And Holder definitely counts as a clown
 
2013-05-20 11:24:18 AM  
every story I've seen on the topic refers to the "secret" subpoenas. Here's an example

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/
 
2013-05-20 11:24:54 AM  

skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to subpoena all their trading records for the past 6 months"


I accidentally that post
 
2013-05-20 11:25:37 AM  

DarnoKonrad: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.

Doesn't make any farking sense.


Rex Talionis:
The DoJ was investigating a leak about an Al-Qaeda affiliate's plot to hijack airline flights in Yemen. The operation had managed to embed a British informant on the inside who was feeding information to MI-6 and US Intelligence agencies on the plot. When the AP decided to publish their story, MI-6 and the CIA had the scramble to extract the inside informant and his family because they were in immediate danger. Plus, the AP story put an entire operation to take down an Al-Qaeda affiliate down into jeopardy, not to mention they made it a lot harder for the US to infiltrate the operation in the future.
So, the AP put lives in danger and compromised an active intelligence operation because they wanted a scoop.


Maybe, just maybe, the liberals who were pissed at Plame's outing (and wanted to know the source of the leak, and extract consequences for that leak) and the liberals who support Obama for going after a leak of a similar nature, are actually being consistent in their application of those liberal beliefs.  Unless I'm totally mistaken (which happens frequently), libs were pissed about a leak, and are still pissed about a leak. So maybe it does make sense.  Maybe.
 
2013-05-20 11:26:02 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: MFAWG: I seem to recall one party or the other advocating for shield laws for journalists.

The proposed shield law does the exact opposite of what it claims to.
It makes exceptions to protections when "National Security" issues are involved.
it would be horrible for whistleblower/reporter relations.


Which specific law is this?
 
2013-05-20 11:26:11 AM  

Kibbler: Roll forward x years when a Repub is in the White House, and gets caught doing the same thing, and the response will be "because TERROR, you treasonous TREASON TRAITOR."

The right hates, loathes and despises the press so very very much that they are filled with white-hot indignation over allegations that freedom of the press has been abridged.

/until they do it
//because TERROR


Only Rapublicans are afraid of "Terror" derp.  The rest of us are ready to move on... have been for 11 years.
 
2013-05-20 11:30:03 AM  

Dansker: thetubameister:
Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!

Freedom of the Press does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that you have the freedom to pass classified information to the press.


I'm pretty sure they weren't passing the info to themselves... the Gov't needs to find it's employee.  The individuals at the AP have every right to express whatever it knows or thinks...
 
2013-05-20 11:30:07 AM  
I M P E A C H ! ! ! ! !
 
2013-05-20 11:30:41 AM  

skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"


Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?
 
2013-05-20 11:31:32 AM  

Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!
As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.


see in America it doesn't have to be an actual scandal. It only has to be perceived as one.
 
2013-05-20 11:31:34 AM  
HHahahahHaha Nd it was these fox news farksticks that promoted the patriot act which made all this.possible. hahahaha my irony meter went off the charts
 
2013-05-20 11:31:35 AM  

Nabb1: Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it

Why do you assume that everyone critical of how the DoJ handled the AP investigation is conservative? The vast majority of both parties support the Patriot Act. Republicans in the House and Senate have largely defended the Administration's heavy-handed dealing with the AP.  You are correct that the Patriot Act sucks. That's all that needs to be said, but this partisan excuse making isn't going to solve anything.


Then this is a non-issue and certainly not a "scandal" as Faux News and various other conservative mouthpieces have been trying to make, now is it? Under the Patriot Act every bit of this non-issue is legal; a court order was granted and the phone companies gave up the call records. Case closed, let's move on to something else.

Oh, the conservatives still are trying to turn this into something? Then it is most certainly a partisan issue, isn't it?
 
2013-05-20 11:32:36 AM  

DraconianTotalitarian: HHahahahHaha Nd it was these fox news farksticks that promoted the patriot act which made all this.possible. hahahaha my irony meter went off the charts


I think this would have been legal before the patriot act.
 
2013-05-20 11:33:01 AM  

Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?


that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.
 
2013-05-20 11:34:56 AM  

puddleonfire: And these are the only tappings that were FOUND OUT.

I remember when spooks showed up at my restaurant reservation in San Diego after following me along hwy 8.
No one knew about the reservation except my work phone.
NICE.


It's not your work phone, it's that chip they implanted the last time you had dental work.
 
2013-05-20 11:41:09 AM  

skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.


Can you cite a relevant court case or actual law that says this?
 
2013-05-20 11:43:53 AM  

PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


Reading is hard, for you anyway.


And /thread.
 
2013-05-20 11:44:21 AM  

MFAWG: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.

Can you cite a relevant court case or actual law that says this?


that says what? He mischaracterized what the story is about. It isn't about seizing the records of a single journalist. So no, I cannot cite a court case or law which says that his post was incorrect.
 
2013-05-20 11:51:30 AM  

ThighsofGlory: It's not your work phone, it's that chip they implanted the last time you had dental work.


i.movie.as

Approves
 
2013-05-20 11:53:03 AM  

Schubert'sCell: DarnoKonrad: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.

Doesn't make any farking sense.

Rex Talionis:
The DoJ was investigating a leak about an Al-Qaeda affiliate's plot to hijack airline flights in Yemen. The operation had managed to embed a British informant on the inside who was feeding information to MI-6 and US Intelligence agencies on the plot. When the AP decided to publish their story, MI-6 and the CIA had the scramble to extract the inside informant and his family because they were in immediate danger. Plus, the AP story put an entire operation to take down an Al-Qaeda affiliate down into jeopardy, not to mention they made it a lot harder for the US to infiltrate the operation in the future.
So, the AP put lives in danger and compromised an active intelligence operation because they wanted a scoop.

Maybe, just maybe, the liberals who were pissed at Plame's outing (and wanted to know the source of the leak, and extract consequences for that leak) and the liberals who support Obama for going after a leak of a similar nature, are actually being consistent in their application of those liberal beliefs.  Unless I'm totally mistaken (which happens frequently), libs were pissed about a leak, and are still pissed about a leak. So maybe it does make sense.  Maybe.


First you didn't want me to get the pony! Now you want me to take it back! Make up your mind.
 
2013-05-20 12:00:54 PM  
Application for search warrant. Link, PDF
 
2013-05-20 12:05:54 PM  

skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.


Maybe you read a different article, and maybe you are conflating two different cases.
 
2013-05-20 12:08:44 PM  

ShadowKamui: trotsky: MFAWG: SlothB77: The Dems have found their Nixon.

David Gregory gave Peg Noonan a pretty good slapdown yesterday when she said these were the worst abuses she'd ever seen by pointing out that Pegs used to work for Nixon

Obama so far has not:

Authorized a clown like Gordon Liddy to bungle what should have been an easy break in to the opposition's HQ and the Psychologists office of a press leak. (Nixon didn't hire Liddy, Colson and Hunt did, Liddy's still a clown act though)

Hired Cubans to act as "foot soldiers"

Authorize "Union Thugs" to beat the snot out of Tea Tard protestors in DC

Go on a witch hunt for political purposes.

Expand a war he is trying to wind down

Nixon and Obama did:

Replace nearly all of their cabinet at the second term.

Inspire irrational hatred amongst the opposition ( to be honest though, Nixon's was kind of justified as he was very well known in politics)

Say they are going to end a war. And do exactly that.

Laugh at the opposition and proceed to do exactly what they want anyway.
( I really like McGovern and the '72 race is great because McGovern was a man of principles who refused to compromise to win. Rmoney was a man of absolutely zero principles who would have compromised anything to win)

If I were Obama I would thank the right for comparing him to Nixon. Nixon, despite the dirty tricks, did many good things. Nixon was the last of the good Republicans.

He did escalate Yemen & Pakistan
And Holder definitely counts as a clown


LOLOLOL. Holder is nowhere near the level of John Mitchell or Liddy. Hell, the entire "Fast and Furious" thing was Fox's attempt to create something far bigger than it was. G. Gordon Liddy is a macho moron who farked the Nixon presidency six ways to Sunday. Even Colson admitted that Liddy went overboard in his break-ins. The right sure does love posturing macho morons who wave their guns around but can't back up shiat, don't they?

How did Obama escalate Yemen? Did he go and bomb Saudi Arabia or something? Did he send Kissenger in?

How did he escalate Pakistan? Seriously, how? By killing Bin Laden? Pakistan was escalated the minute we went in during 9/11. Once we're out of Afghanistan, Pakistan will be deprived of it's military aid, again.

Also, the Nixon Library had Rumsfeld last week as a guest. That piece of shiat had the nerve to talk about Benghazi as a scandal. Never mind that scumbag killed how many Americans by sending in an ill-equipped force with a short-sighted, shiat long term strategy to invade a state that stabilized the region.
 
2013-05-20 12:09:37 PM  

SilentStrider: Pointed out that the people who weren't mad when the previous guy did things like this but are suddenly mad that the current guy is doing it now are hypocrites?
That didn't take a lot of corner thinking.


That's only a valid point if the same people doing it now were NOT opposed to it when the last guy did it, and/or if those who are opposed to it now were not opposed to it before.

Also, please prove that race is what is driving the opposition to this crap.
 
2013-05-20 12:24:17 PM  
If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.
 
2013-05-20 12:24:31 PM  
It's not as if Fox News has anything to do with journalism.
 
2013-05-20 12:28:00 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: This rationale is dangerous. The DOJ is trying to criminalize investigative journalism. If a leaker brings up a fact to the reporter, and the reporter asks "I need to see evidence of your claim before I run a story on it, can you provide some proof?", the DOJ claims it can prosecute the reporter for inciting the leaker to reveal additional classified information.


Well, only if you think "investigate" and "prosecute" are synonyms.

Could be they're trying to prosecute only the person or persons who leaked the info, and are investigating the journalists to find the leaker(s).
 
2013-05-20 12:28:54 PM  

SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.


Wrong talking point. This is supposed to be about Obama targeting the MSM during an investigation of a DoJ employee.
 
2013-05-20 12:31:56 PM  
givien the statistics on black men in prison, Mr. Obama has got to be sweating this now. peoeple will go to jail ove the tax records leak and when they start playing lets make a deal how many ghetto rats will roll over on the black jesus?


//over under?
 
2013-05-20 12:33:58 PM  
I certainly trust Republicans more now.


Oh wait.
 
2013-05-20 12:36:40 PM  

skullkrusher: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to subpoena all their trading records for the past 6 months"

I accidentally that post


More like "We are going to search every house that we believe the killer and his accomplices visited" or "We are going to subpoena records for trades executed by the people we suspect of insider trading".
 
2013-05-20 12:36:47 PM  
Sorry, a State Department employee, not DoJ.
 
2013-05-20 12:39:02 PM  
Too many alts, not enough space on the ignore list
 
Displayed 50 of 241 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report