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.

(CNN)   DOJ notified Fox News of phone records subpoena three years ago   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 177
    More: Followup, law-enforcement sources, James Rosen, News Corporation  
•       •       •

2163 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 May 2013 at 9:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-26 01:51:15 AM  
Fox has said it learned of the warrant for e-mails only recently

Clever girl.
 
2013-05-26 02:11:35 AM  
God bless their poor, dear sweet hearts, but they try so very hard...
 
2013-05-26 02:26:16 AM  
So, that makes it okay, then, right? It was a total different DoJ three years ago. . . wait. . .

Oh, but they were just saving it to use it against the President, right? Keep him from getting reelected. . .

What was the point of that CNN political ticker blog, anyway? Are we back to accepting CNN at face value again?
 
2013-05-26 04:59:38 AM  
Nobody who gets their news at Fox News is going to give two shiats that any of this 'scandal' is anything less than the worst blah blah blah evar.  Not that Fox is likey to tell them that they dropped the ball themselfves in the "let your people know they're being subpoena'd" dept.
 
2013-05-26 05:04:52 AM  
Somehow I doubt that these facts will affect the perpetual Two Minute Hate that is Fox News.
 
2013-05-26 07:55:15 AM  
The subpoena referenced "journalists" so FockSnooze assumed it wasn't relevant to them.
 
2013-05-26 08:16:37 AM  
The parent company was served, but apparently FOXNews never got them. Nice work, Newscorp.
 
2013-05-26 08:41:31 AM  
Well now.
 
2013-05-26 08:46:19 AM  
The house up the street from me got served with a search warrant, but nobody told me.
 
2013-05-26 09:19:43 AM  
While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search, that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen's e-mail.

You know, I personally would assume in this day and age that if the government wants to know who I've called, they also want to know who I emailed.  Not assuming that would be like thinking they got a subpoena for your home landline but not your cell phone.
 
2013-05-26 09:28:39 AM  

Karac: While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search, that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen's e-mail.

You know, I personally would assume in this day and age that if the government wants to know who I've called, they also want to know who I emailed.  Not assuming that would be like thinking they got a subpoena for your home landline but not your cell phone.


Maybe. But my guess is that the subpoena would have to specifically list the emails. My next guess is that we'll soon learn the DOJ notified Fox News of the email subpoena 2 1/2 years ago.
 
2013-05-26 09:31:12 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Fox has said it learned of the warrant for e-mails only recently

Clever girl.


Look, they just skimmed the info, didn't see that email part.
 
2013-05-26 09:36:48 AM  

Notabunny: Karac: While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search, that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen's e-mail.

You know, I personally would assume in this day and age that if the government wants to know who I've called, they also want to know who I emailed.  Not assuming that would be like thinking they got a subpoena for your home landline but not your cell phone.

Maybe. But my guess is that the subpoena would have to specifically list the emails. My next guess is that we'll soon learn the DOJ notified Fox News of the email subpoena 2 1/2 years ago.


The subpoena didn't list the emails, as per TFA a warrant listed the emails.  I was merely talking about the notice to NewsCorp.
 
2013-05-26 09:38:29 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: The house up the street from me got served with a search warrant, but nobody told me.


your mom should have yelled down in the basement and told you that you had mail.
 
2013-05-26 09:39:10 AM  
So that part about serving them is likely covered. Any word on Rosen being a co-conspirator of something? Is there any doubt whatever his part was is covered by freedom of the press yet?
 
2013-05-26 09:41:36 AM  

LarryDan43: NewportBarGuy: Fox has said it learned of the warrant for e-mails only recently

Clever girl.

Look, they just skimmed the info, didn't see that email part.


heh they were probably distracted by all the warrants and subpoenas from their own little wiretapping ,email hacking operation of their own that was happening at the time.
 
2013-05-26 09:45:09 AM  
Seizing phone records of media instituions is incredibly sleazy and auhoritarian.
 
2013-05-26 09:45:56 AM  
CNN is reporting this?  I assume this means Fox hasn't even been told about the subpoenas yet.
 
2013-05-26 09:54:15 AM  

Hetfield: Seizing phone records of media instituions is incredibly sleazy and auhoritarian.


so it's okay if the govt can't find national security leaks?
the SCOTUS decided long ago that  phone logs and emails weren't private property because they depend on 3rd parties. there's no real expectation of privacy. especially when the calls and emails go through govt phones and mail servers. which these did. hell they can search your physical mail too. Bush did it all the time.
 
2013-05-26 09:55:42 AM  
NewsCorp usually doesn't talk to the journalists peasants unless, of couse, one has died or is about to die, and the dead peasant insurance is about to kick in.
The peasants are so replaceable, even though the audience, also peasants, sometimes doesn't take to the new faces, but who knows what really goes on in their heads anyway.
 
2013-05-26 09:59:10 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: The house up the street from me got served with a search warrant, but nobody told me.


cogent tweet, bro
 
2013-05-26 10:00:23 AM  
Just to make sure I understand the story: Fox and the AP reported classified information in April. The DoJ and White House set about to find the source of the leaked information. They obtained warrants and subpoenae as applicable and served them on Fox and the AP.

What is that I'm supposed to be outraged about?
 
2013-05-26 10:02:04 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: The house up the street from me got served with a search warrant, but nobody told me.


More like your boss at McDonald's got served with a search warrant to go through your employee files, but didn't tell you because you were doing such a good job on drive through.
 
2013-05-26 10:03:24 AM  

Hetfield: Seizing phone records of media instituions is incredibly sleazy and auhoritarian.


I'm curious to know where you got the idea that "media institutions" are immune from being compelled to produce testimony or evidence.
 
2013-05-26 10:05:35 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: jehovahs witness protection: The house up the street from me got served with a search warrant, but nobody told me.

More like your boss at McDonald's got served with a search warrant to go through your employee files, but didn't tell you because you were doing such a good job on drive through.


Pretty soon he's gonna move up to assistant shift manager; that's where the big bucks are.
 
2013-05-26 10:07:22 AM  

MFAWG: Just to make sure I understand the story: Fox and the AP reported classified information in April. The DoJ and White House set about to find the source of the leaked information. They obtained warrants and subpoenae as applicable and served them on Fox and the AP.

What is that I'm supposed to be outraged about?


The Freefom of the press is sacrosanct*.

*status to be reevaluated in 2016
 
2013-05-26 10:07:48 AM  

Hobodeluxe: so it's okay if the govt can't find national security leaks?


No, I don't disagree with that, but debating their approach and powers should not be above criticism, and SCOTUS declaring it legal does not make it any less sleazy and auhoritarian in my eyes.

qorkfiend: I'm curious to know where you got the idea


I didn't.
 
2013-05-26 10:09:45 AM  

almandot: So that part about serving them is likely covered. Any word on Rosen being a co-conspirator of something? Is there any doubt whatever his part was is covered by freedom of the press yet?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)

In July 2005, Miller was jailed for for refusing to testify before a federal investigating a naming as an undercover officer. Miller did not write about Plame, but was reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation.
 
2013-05-26 10:09:47 AM  
Well, we can't expect Fox News to keep Fox News any more informed than they keep their audience informed.
 
2013-05-26 10:10:00 AM  

Hetfield: No, I don't disagree with that, but debating their approach and powers should not be above criticism, and SCOTUS declaring it legal does not make it any less sleazy and auhoritarian in my eyes.


well, this is interesting. It's as if you are a principled liberal as opposed to, well, those other guys
 
2013-05-26 10:12:05 AM  
Hetfield:
No, I don't disagree with that, but debating their approach and powers should not be above criticism, and SCOTUS declaring it legal does not make it any less sleazy and auhoritarian in my eyes.

This is twice now...  The word is authoritarian.
 
2013-05-26 10:12:40 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: MFAWG: Just to make sure I understand the story: Fox and the AP reported classified information in April. The DoJ and White House set about to find the source of the leaked information. They obtained warrants and subpoenae as applicable and served them on Fox and the AP.

What is that I'm supposed to be outraged about?

The Freefom of the press is sacrosanct*.

*status to be reevaluated in 2016


Ah, I see the problem here.

Okay, you know that being a member of the press doesn't mean you get diplomatic immunity, right?
 
2013-05-26 10:13:06 AM  
here's what I think about this.

here you have a reporter who works for an organization that is opposed to Obama.
he grooms a source in the state dept. to give him info.
he gets info that has no real public value ,it doesn't expose corruption, it's not a legitimate whistleblower leak. but..
it can be used by his network to say "hey Obama's sanctions are likely to make N Korea perform more nuclear tests"
Now nevermind that everything makes N. Korea posture with it's nuclear threats.
Nevermind that this works well for N. Korea
Nevermind that everyone (even the GOP) agrees to the sanctions
the only thing that this is good for is so Fox can spin it to say "Obama is making you less safe"

Now put yourself in the DoJ.
You have the head of the intelligence agencies asking you to find the mole leaking national security assessments on N. Korea.
Now whether this one leak was damaging or not you still have someone in a position willing to leak classified info and the next leak might be damaging. (like the one about the terror plot)
What do you do? Well thanks to the Patriot act you can start with the reporter and find out. All of it totally legal.
Now had this been a legit whistleblower exposing corruption and the DOJ was retaliating trying to cover it up yes it would be embarrassing and tyrannical. It would be akin to what Bush did to Plame.Or Nixon to the prosecutor. but it wasn't. it was actually the right thing to do and the press aren't reporting this fact because they want to be above any investigatory powers,untouchable.  To which I say ptooey. You should have thought about that when you decided to report this. It had no value other than your political purpose.
 
2013-05-26 10:14:19 AM  

skullkrusher: Hetfield: No, I don't disagree with that, but debating their approach and powers should not be above criticism, and SCOTUS declaring it legal does not make it any less sleazy and auhoritarian in my eyes.

well, this is interesting. It's as if you are a principled liberal as opposed to, well, those other guys


I don't recall a lot of outrage from anybody on Miller, largely because she had been completely discredited as a journalist by the time she ended up in jail.

So, you're going to have a hard time ginning up any outrage for ANYBODY at Fox.
 
2013-05-26 10:16:46 AM  

Hetfield: qorkfiend: I'm curious to know where you got the idea

I didn't.


And yet, that's the idea you just presented; clearly you got it somewhere. You do realize subpoenas and warrants are standard legal tools for compelling production of evidence and testimony, yes? And yet their use is somehow "sleazy".
 
2013-05-26 10:19:03 AM  

skullkrusher: well, this is interesting. It's as if you are a principled liberal as opposed to, well, those other guys


I'm just not happy with the thought of largely unchecked executive powers.

Doc Lee: This is twice now...  The word is authoritarian.


STOP PERSECUTING ME.
 
2013-05-26 10:23:03 AM  

MFAWG: skullkrusher: Hetfield: No, I don't disagree with that, but debating their approach and powers should not be above criticism, and SCOTUS declaring it legal does not make it any less sleazy and auhoritarian in my eyes.

well, this is interesting. It's as if you are a principled liberal as opposed to, well, those other guys

I don't recall a lot of outrage from anybody on Miller, largely because she had been completely discredited as a journalist by the time she ended up in jail.

So, you're going to have a hard time ginning up any outrage for ANYBODY at Fox.


yes, principled people judge their outrage based on who is the target of the action in question
 
2013-05-26 10:26:19 AM  

qorkfiend: You do realize subpoenas and warrants are standard legal tools for compelling production of evidence and testimony, yes? And yet their use is somehow "sleazy".


I now realize I am guilty of giving aid and comfort to Fox News, and for that I would like to apologize.
 
2013-05-26 10:28:12 AM  

Hetfield: skullkrusher: well, this is interesting. It's as if you are a principled liberal as opposed to, well, those other guys

I'm just not happy with the thought of largely unchecked executive powers.

Doc Lee: This is twice now...  The word is authoritarian.

STOP PERSECUTING ME.


Don't you mean "S'op persecu'ing me"?

Now let's all go to the plane'arium
 
2013-05-26 10:28:18 AM  

skullkrusher: MFAWG: skullkrusher: Hetfield: No, I don't disagree with that, but debating their approach and powers should not be above criticism, and SCOTUS declaring it legal does not make it any less sleazy and auhoritarian in my eyes.

well, this is interesting. It's as if you are a principled liberal as opposed to, well, those other guys

I don't recall a lot of outrage from anybody on Miller, largely because she had been completely discredited as a journalist by the time she ended up in jail.

So, you're going to have a hard time ginning up any outrage for ANYBODY at Fox.

yes, principled people judge their outrage based on who is the target of the action in question


Principles? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAgassssspppppp BWAHAHAHAHAHAHhhhhhaaa...

I'm honestly just not seeing the outrage.  I'm not even saying Fox shouldn't have reported the story, just that they should have been willing to pay the price for doing so, the way journalists have for a long, long time.
 
2013-05-26 10:29:37 AM  
This should be on the main page...
 
2013-05-26 10:31:07 AM  

MFAWG: Principles? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAgassssspppppp BWAHAHAHAHAHAHhhhhhaaa...


why is that so funny? It is your principles to which I'm referring.
 
2013-05-26 10:32:13 AM  

Hetfield: Seizing phone records of media instituions is incredibly sleazy and auhoritarian.



Freedom 2.0™

You'll get over it.
 
2013-05-26 10:35:48 AM  

skullkrusher: MFAWG: Principles? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAgassssspppppp BWAHAHAHAHAHAHhhhhhaaa...

why is that so funny? It is your principles to which I'm referring.


Can you link me to some of your outraged posts about the jailing of Miller or anybody else?
 
2013-05-26 10:39:51 AM  

MFAWG: skullkrusher: MFAWG: Principles? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAgassssspppppp BWAHAHAHAHAHAHhhhhhaaa...

why is that so funny? It is your principles to which I'm referring.

Can you link me to some of your outraged posts about the jailing of Miller or anybody else?


Do I sound outraged? Did I say that leaks should not and could not be investigated?
She should have been jailed for refusing to release the source of her leaks. Of course, that was before my Fark birth so there won't be any links.
 
2013-05-26 10:43:07 AM  

MFAWG: Just to make sure I understand the story: Fox and the AP reported classified information in April. The DoJ and White House set about to find the source of the leaked information. They obtained warrants and subpoenae as applicable and served them on Fox and the AP.

What is that I'm supposed to be outraged about?


Nothing. It sounds like you're completely comfortable with a heavy-handed government putting the hammer down on a pesky media.

Also comfortable with whatever justification they care to feed you. So do nothing.
 
2013-05-26 10:50:00 AM  

DarwiOdrade: Now let's all go to the plane'arium


Mind 'he gap.
 
2013-05-26 10:53:25 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Well, we can't expect Fox News to keep Fox News any more infromed than they keep their audience infromed.


FTFY
 
2013-05-26 10:55:14 AM  

Hobodeluxe: jehovahs witness protection: The house up the street from me got served with a search warrant, but nobody told me.

your mom should have yelled down in the basement and told you that you had mail.


Meh, she doesn't wanna talk to him any more than anyone else does.
 
2013-05-26 11:03:44 AM  

Cletus C.: MFAWG: Just to make sure I understand the story: Fox and the AP reported classified information in April. The DoJ and White House set about to find the source of the leaked information. They obtained warrants and subpoenae as applicable and served them on Fox and the AP.

What is that I'm supposed to be outraged about?

Nothing. It sounds like you're completely comfortable with a heavy-handed government putting the hammer down on a pesky media.

Also comfortable with whatever justification they care to feed you. So do nothing.


I'm not 'comfortable', but I live in the real world where it happens. In this case it looks like they got at least 2 judges to agree that they had a good reason to obtain the phone records.

So what's the problem?
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report