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.

(The Blaze)   Hi, Mrs. reporter, we're from the DHS, here to, um... search your home for guns. Oh yeah, and we'll just grab all these notes you made regarding all your confidential whistleblowers inside the TSA, too   (theblaze.com) divider line 234
    More: Scary, DHS, TSA, Maryland State Police, Daily Caller  
•       •       •

10733 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Oct 2013 at 2:52 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-26 10:16:09 AM

Being found guilty of "resisting arrest" means you lose your right to bear arms?



FTA:Hudson's husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 of resisting arrest and is forbidden by law from owning or possessing a firearm

Am I missing something here?
 
2013-10-26 10:22:20 AM
So hudsons husband who is barred from owning a firearm is an ordnance tech for the military

Hudson's husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 of resisting arrest and is forbidden by law from owning or possessing a firearm,

Hudson's husband is currently employed as an ordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore


Also the Coast Guard investigator was also an air marshall?

Hudson said an investigator with the Coast Guard's Investigative Service identified her

The investigator who identified Hudson as the former Washington Times journalist is reportedly a former air marshal.


If only the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife were mentioned in that article, at least we would then know where that fishy smell is coming from
 
2013-10-26 10:23:56 AM
I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but you CAN be convicted of Felony Resisting Arrest if it meets certain criteria.  Otherwise, it's 1st Degree Misdemeanor. 

So, yes, if it was a Felony conviction, you cannot own a gun...
 
2013-10-26 10:26:40 AM

North_Central_Positronics: I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but you CAN be convicted of Felony Resisting Arrest if it meets certain criteria.  Otherwise, it's 1st Degree Misdemeanor. 

So, yes, if it was a Felony conviction, you cannot own a gun...


I want to understand how resisting arrest can be elevated to a felony.  What the hell did the guy do to plead down to that charge?  (or he had a really, really, shiatty lawyer)
 
2013-10-26 10:29:07 AM

BunkyBrewman: North_Central_Positronics: I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but you CAN be convicted of Felony Resisting Arrest if it meets certain criteria.  Otherwise, it's 1st Degree Misdemeanor. 

So, yes, if it was a Felony conviction, you cannot own a gun...

I want to understand how resisting arrest can be elevated to a felony.


Link. It probably makes a difference what state you're in, as well.
 
2013-10-26 10:37:21 AM
The important thing to remember here is that the Federal government is totally above the law.  They answer to no one and do whatever they damn well please, free of all consequences.
 
2013-10-26 10:37:33 AM
I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?  The NSA wiretapping, police overreach, raiding the homes of reporters on trumped up bullshiat to confiscate their materials and sources, journalists who expose information about or are overly critical of the government living in exile...

Seriously, do people not see the similarities to totalitarian regimes?
 
2013-10-26 10:46:18 AM

North_Central_Positronics: BunkyBrewman: North_Central_Positronics: I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but you CAN be convicted of Felony Resisting Arrest if it meets certain criteria.  Otherwise, it's 1st Degree Misdemeanor. 

So, yes, if it was a Felony conviction, you cannot own a gun...

I want to understand how resisting arrest can be elevated to a felony.

Link. It probably makes a difference what state you're in, as well.


Just read it was Maryland.  That would explain things.
 
2013-10-26 10:48:12 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?  The NSA wiretapping, police overreach, raiding the homes of reporters on trumped up bullshiat to confiscate their materials and sources, journalists who expose information about or are overly critical of the government living in exile...

Seriously, do people not see the similarities to totalitarian regimes?


NSA wiretapping= fighting GWOT, is still popular in the US. People like it. They probably assume all the nastiness is directed at other people, possibly those with beards and strange-sounding names.
Police overreach= tough on crime. That's always been the case. Politicians win elections by being tough on crime. Again, a significant majority is down for that cause. Most people don' ever expect that they could possibly ever be on the receiving end.

Civil war? shiat. People are anti-journalist. The only thing that riles anyone up enough is the blah-(D)-dah in the white house.
 
2013-10-26 10:49:05 AM
The sources cited include the Blaze, the daily caller and some random chick

Woman has illegal guns.  biatches about freedumb when they're taken.

OMG OBAMA CONSPIRACY! HE RUNS THE MARYLAND STATE POLICE NOW TOO!

Did i mention this was on the farking blaze?
 
2013-10-26 10:49:55 AM
Also she was a reporter for the moonie Times.   ITS ALL COMING TOGETHER NOW

herpa derpa doo
 
2013-10-26 11:04:50 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: Also she was a reporter for the moonie Times.   ITS ALL COMING TOGETHER NOW

herpa derpa doo


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-10-26 11:08:25 AM
She "writes" for Newsmax...

I stopped reading right there
 
2013-10-26 11:13:56 AM
Her TSA "notes" were probably scrawled in crayon.
 
2013-10-26 11:20:30 AM

dr_blasto: People are anti-journalist. T


The "Shame on the Media" crowd doesn't care although you'd think they might wonder about the gun angle. Total number of guns seized: zero. So the anti-2nd amendment people use that as leverage to go after the 1st amendment people?

At least with whistleblower laws, eventually (meaning years), everyone will be free of prison and collecting big checks form you and me, I mean, the government.
 
2013-10-26 11:21:14 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?  The NSA wiretapping, police overreach, raiding the homes of reporters on trumped up bullshiat to confiscate their materials and sources, journalists who expose information about or are overly critical of the government living in exile...

Seriously, do people not see the similarities to totalitarian regimes?


Yeah, freelance journalist for NewsMax and a newspaper I'm unfamiliar with, it could be quite legit.  I'm actually surprised that she garnered so many important anonymous sources;

Still, I agree that the scenario as presented is chilling.  A flimsy excuse for searching the house and taking stuff outside the warrant.

But perhaps this crack reporter will learn to better hide and protect her notes.
 
2013-10-26 11:25:34 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?


You didn't take up arms.  Why would you expect everyone else to?
 
2013-10-26 11:41:42 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: Woman has illegal guns. biatches about freedumb when they're taken


The warrant was for guns.  No one mentioned that any were found.  And that's a classic way to obtain a dubious warrant.

And even if they found illegal machine guns and a howitzer, all of the above does not excuse the seizure of property not listed on the warrant.
 
2013-10-26 11:43:02 AM
Massive grain of salt has to be taken because of the source (The Blaze) and the insane people that she works for (NewsMax and Washington Times), but if the bare bones of the story are correct, than this is a huge problem for me.

The government does not have the right to confiscate reporter's documents relating to confidential sources without a compelling interest (and even then it's shaky ground).

Granted, I doubt that whatever I would think is a reasonable response is going to come anywhere close to what the Blazing Tea Crazies is going to think is a reasonable objection.
 
2013-10-26 11:44:16 AM

Relatively Obscure: Benevolent Misanthrope: I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?

You didn't take up arms.  Why would you expect everyone else to?


I don't live there any more, and Canada doesn't do that shiat to us.  As a matter of fact, we're pretty pissed off about the NSA wiretapping our calls to the US, and you may not have noticed, but we're moving ourselves onto a more global footing when it comes to trade.  I get questions all the time from Canadians about how the US is declining and don't their people see that, how is it possible that politicians could possibly be concerned with their petty squabbles at a time when the country should be scrambling to avert the downfall, and WTF is the deal with hating a black President so much?

When it comes to the US, it's kind of like Kirk Cameron's birthday party, with Canada kind of sidling toward the door with its hands in its pockets.

Just so you know.

/Alberta is considered the most conservative province.  Calgary has a gay Muslim cowboy mayor.  What do you got, USA?
 
2013-10-26 11:47:51 AM

SphericalTime: Massive grain of salt has to be taken because of the source (The Blaze) and the insane people that she works for (NewsMax and Washington Times), but if the bare bones of the story are correct, than this is a huge problem for me


I notice that nowhere does the article state that it was the ATF conducting the raid (assuming a federal gun beef).  They may have swept up the papers as a matter of course due to their official government labels.
 
2013-10-26 11:53:33 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Doktor_Zhivago: Woman has illegal guns. biatches about freedumb when they're taken

The warrant was for guns.  No one mentioned that any were found.  And that's a classic way to obtain a dubious warrant.

And even if they found illegal machine guns and a howitzer, all of the above does not excuse the seizure of property not listed on the warrant.


This assumes that her account is above board. Everyone ever arrested for a DUI, from their POV, is being assaulted by jack-booted thugs.
 
2013-10-26 11:56:05 AM

BunkyBrewman: North_Central_Positronics: I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but you CAN be convicted of Felony Resisting Arrest if it meets certain criteria.  Otherwise, it's 1st Degree Misdemeanor. 

So, yes, if it was a Felony conviction, you cannot own a gun...

I want to understand how resisting arrest can be elevated to a felony.  What the hell did the guy do to plead down to that charge?  (or he had a really, really, shiatty lawyer)


Here in Georgia, it's a felony if you resist arrest with violence.  He might have had that charge, and 2 counts of battery on a LEO, for example.  If he had to plea to a felony--that one looks best to me too.
 
2013-10-26 12:07:46 PM
Non-story. Nothing to see here. Just herp from a bunch of morons. Did you know Glenn Beck killed a woman in 1990?

She probably wasn't a real state approved journalist anyway so that means she shouldn't enjoy Constitutional protections.

Benevolent Misanthrope: I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?  The NSA wiretapping, police overreach, raiding the homes of reporters on trumped up bullshiat to confiscate their materials and sources, journalists who expose information about or are overly critical of the government living in exile...

Seriously, do people not see the similarities to totalitarian regimes?


That's so racist.
 
2013-10-26 12:09:00 PM

Mrbogey: Non-story. Nothing to see here. Just herp from a bunch of morons. Did you know Glenn Beck killed a woman in 1990?

She probably wasn't a real state approved journalist anyway so that means she shouldn't enjoy Constitutional protections.


Congratulations, opinion that nobody has stated in this thread that you think all libs believe!
 
2013-10-26 12:11:49 PM
Non Glenn Beck derp site source on this story?
 
2013-10-26 12:23:15 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Relatively Obscure: Benevolent Misanthrope: I do have questions about this lady as a serious journalist, seeing as who she works for... but how the fark is the US not in a state of civil war over crap like this?

You didn't take up arms.  Why would you expect everyone else to?

I don't live there any more, and Canada doesn't do that shiat to us.  As a matter of fact, we're pretty pissed off about the NSA wiretapping our calls to the US, and you may not have noticed, but we're moving ourselves onto a more global footing when it comes to trade.  I get questions all the time from Canadians about how the US is declining and don't their people see that, how is it possible that politicians could possibly be concerned with their petty squabbles at a time when the country should be scrambling to avert the downfall, and WTF is the deal with hating a black President so much?

When it comes to the US, it's kind of like Kirk Cameron's birthday party, with Canada kind of sidling toward the door with its hands in its pockets.

Just so you know.

/Alberta is considered the most conservative province.  Calgary has a gay Muslim cowboy mayor.  What do you got, USA?


Damn, you had this until the end. We have an atheist bisexual female Congressperson. And I think the mayor of Houston was gay (though maybe not Muslim).

/otherwise, good show!
 
2013-10-26 12:23:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Congratulations, opinion that nobody has stated in this thread that you think all libs believe!


*ahem*

Doktor_Zhivago: The sources cited include the Blaze, the daily caller and some random chick

Woman has illegal guns.  biatches about freedumb when they're taken.

OMG OBAMA CONSPIRACY! HE RUNS THE MARYLAND STATE POLICE NOW TOO!

Did i mention this was on the farking blaze?


baka-san: She "writes" for Newsmax...

I stopped reading right there


cameroncrazy1984: Her TSA "notes" were probably scrawled in crayon.


That last commenter you may recognize as yourself. Or did you flub and mean to post your second comment under a different account?
 
2013-10-26 12:38:00 PM

Mrbogey: *ahem*


Yay. Liars lie. Crazy people have little touch with reality. Why should known liars or crazy people be believed this time?
 
2013-10-26 12:40:32 PM

b2theory: Marcus Aurelius: Doktor_Zhivago: Woman has illegal guns. biatches about freedumb when they're taken

The warrant was for guns.  No one mentioned that any were found.  And that's a classic way to obtain a dubious warrant.

And even if they found illegal machine guns and a howitzer, all of the above does not excuse the seizure of property not listed on the warrant.

This assumes that her account is above board. Everyone ever arrested for a DUI, from their POV, is being assaulted by jack-booted thugs.


True.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-10-26 12:46:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing to remember here is that the Federal government is totally above the law.  They answer to no one and do whatever they damn well please, free of all consequences.


Except that this was a joint State and Federal operation.  So it's a state issue as well.  I guarantee the warrant came from the state since the felony resisting arrest was a state level crime.
 
2013-10-26 12:48:45 PM

Mrbogey: That last commenter you may recognize as yourself. Or did you flub and mean to post your second comment under a different account?


Where did I say anything about where she shouldn't enjoy constitutional protections? I was just making fun of her clearly high credentials.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-10-26 12:51:34 PM
Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.
 
2013-10-26 01:02:01 PM

NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.


But what basis would they have for thinking the notes would be illegal? It's not as if she's going to have a cover page on top with ILLEGAL INFO written neatly in large, eye-catching block letters with a red crayon. They'd have to examine them in order to have even a suspicion about them. Can they do that? Legally?
 
2013-10-26 01:07:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Where did I say anything about where she shouldn't enjoy constitutional protections? I was just making fun of her clearly high credentials.


I was referencing a current event. Congress (mainly Dems) defined what is and isn't a journalist. Journalists get protections... non-journalists don't.
 
2013-10-26 01:34:54 PM

Secret Agent X23: NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.

But what basis would they have for thinking the notes would be illegal? It's not as if she's going to have a cover page on top with ILLEGAL INFO written neatly in large, eye-catching block letters with a red crayon. They'd have to examine them in order to have even a suspicion about them. Can they do that? Legally?


Another redlit link said that the documents they seized where marked with FOUO and other release-limiting acronyms. I'm no lawyerin' type, so I don't know if that is legal justification for seizing them, any lawyer types got any insight?
 
2013-10-26 01:39:29 PM

jake_lex: Non Glenn Beck derp site source on this story?


This is the (more complete) source the linked site references: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investiga t ive-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/

Frankly, if the events in the article are true, seems she has a pretty clear case for a civil case against MSP and the federal agencies involved. That's completely outside the scope of the warrant they served and violates her 4th and 1st Amendment rights. I'd imagine her compromised sources would have cases as well.

Though it does look like they had good cause to serve the warrant for the husband on the guns (technically, anyway), they never should have touched her notes.
 
2013-10-26 01:55:58 PM
Ah, so we have sketchy-to-loony right wing sources with incomplete information. Most logical course is to assume it's all true, not wait for follow ups, come up with worst-case scenarios to fill in the blanks and react as if those are all true, too.

Insert melodramatic reaction and/or crying eagle here.
 
2013-10-26 02:00:26 PM

new_york_monty: Frankly, if the events in the article are true, seems she has a pretty clear case for a civil case against MSP and the federal agencies involved


How does this jibe with this:


NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.

 
2013-10-26 02:00:51 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Secret Agent X23: NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.

But what basis would they have for thinking the notes would be illegal? It's not as if she's going to have a cover page on top with ILLEGAL INFO written neatly in large, eye-catching block letters with a red crayon. They'd have to examine them in order to have even a suspicion about them. Can they do that? Legally?

Another redlit link said that the documents they seized where marked with FOUO and other release-limiting acronyms. I'm no lawyerin' type, so I don't know if that is legal justification for seizing them, any lawyer types got any insight?


Probably some cop stumbled across some government documents with "scary" classified markings, and freaked out that she had this stuff in her house.  It sounds like she legally obtained them through an FOIA request, so they should return them.
 
2013-10-26 02:01:30 PM

Mrbogey: cameroncrazy1984: Where did I say anything about where she shouldn't enjoy constitutional protections? I was just making fun of her clearly high credentials.

I was referencing a current event. Congress (mainly Dems) defined what is and isn't a journalist. Journalists get protections... non-journalists don't.


Protections from what? Looks like this was a lawful search.
 
2013-10-26 02:08:29 PM

Sgt Otter: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Secret Agent X23: NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.

But what basis would they have for thinking the notes would be illegal? It's not as if she's going to have a cover page on top with ILLEGAL INFO written neatly in large, eye-catching block letters with a red crayon. They'd have to examine them in order to have even a suspicion about them. Can they do that? Legally?

Another redlit link said that the documents they seized where marked with FOUO and other release-limiting acronyms. I'm no lawyerin' type, so I don't know if that is legal justification for seizing them, any lawyer types got any insight?

Probably some cop stumbled across some government documents with "scary" classified markings, and freaked out that she had this stuff in her house.  It sounds like she legally obtained them through an FOIA request, so they should return them.


Sounds about right.  Pretty sure the other article said they had been returned.
 
2013-10-26 02:12:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: new_york_monty: Frankly, if the events in the article are true, seems she has a pretty clear case for a civil case against MSP and the federal agencies involved

How does this jibe with this:


NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.


Because the seized items they took, specifically her documents, were not enumerated in the search warrant and were not illegal. They had no cause to take them without a subpoena. Even if they could argue a reason for taking the FOIAed documents (which is questionable), they had zero cause to take her notes, which are very much protected under the 1st Amendment in her role as a journalist.
 
2013-10-26 02:23:18 PM

new_york_monty: cameroncrazy1984: new_york_monty: Frankly, if the events in the article are true, seems she has a pretty clear case for a civil case against MSP and the federal agencies involved

How does this jibe with this:


NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.

Because the seized items they took, specifically her documents, were not enumerated in the search warrant and were not illegal. They had no cause to take them without a subpoena. Even if they could argue a reason for taking the FOIAed documents (which is questionable), they had zero cause to take her notes, which are very much protected under the 1st Amendment in her role as a journalist.


You're wasting your breath.  You're arguing with a statist who will never admit to himself or the government being wrong.  It's a lawful search, even if articles were unlawfully taken, because it's not illegal when the government does it.
 
2013-10-26 02:33:13 PM

Fark It: new_york_monty: cameroncrazy1984: new_york_monty: Frankly, if the events in the article are true, seems she has a pretty clear case for a civil case against MSP and the federal agencies involved

How does this jibe with this:


NFA: Searches work like this.  If you have a search warrant to look for guns and you see something else which is illegal while exercising the search, it can be confiscated and you can be arrested for a completely unrelated crime.  The Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

Now if you're looking for shotguns and you search a tiny purse, she has a case against the searchers.

Because the seized items they took, specifically her documents, were not enumerated in the search warrant and were not illegal. They had no cause to take them without a subpoena. Even if they could argue a reason for taking the FOIAed documents (which is questionable), they had zero cause to take her notes, which are very much protected under the 1st Amendment in her role as a journalist.

You're wasting your breath.  You're arguing with a statist who will never admit to himself or the government being wrong.  It's a lawful search, even if articles were unlawfully taken, because it's not illegal when the government does it.


I know it looks that way, and I've been around long enough to know his schtick. I wasn't really talking to him. I was talking to everyone else.
 
2013-10-26 02:43:12 PM

Fark It: You're wasting your breath.  You're arguing with a statist who will never admit to himself or the government being wrong.  It's a lawful search, even if articles were unlawfully taken, because it's not illegal when the government does it.


We've never met, have we.
 
2013-10-26 02:44:20 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Doktor_Zhivago: Woman has illegal guns. biatches about freedumb when they're taken

The warrant was for guns.  No one mentioned that any were found.  And that's a classic way to obtain a dubious warrant.

And even if they found illegal machine guns and a howitzer, all of the above does not excuse the seizure of property not listed on the warrant.


And people wonder why pro-2nd amendment people go nuts at the mere suggestion of a mandatory "home inspection" requirement for gun ownership.
 
2013-10-26 02:44:38 PM

new_york_monty: Because the seized items they took, specifically her documents, were not enumerated in the search warrant and were not illegal. They had no cause to take them without a subpoena. Even if they could argue a reason for taking the FOIAed documents (which is questionable), they had zero cause to take her notes, which are very much protected under the 1st Amendment in her role as a journalist.


And which were returned. Did you miss that part?
 
2013-10-26 02:49:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: new_york_monty: Because the seized items they took, specifically her documents, were not enumerated in the search warrant and were not illegal. They had no cause to take them without a subpoena. Even if they could argue a reason for taking the FOIAed documents (which is questionable), they had zero cause to take her notes, which are very much protected under the 1st Amendment in her role as a journalist.

And which were returned. Did you miss that part?


Her confidential sources were revealed, and cannot be unrevealed=damages. You seem to have missed that, or are pointedly avoiding it.
 
2013-10-26 02:52:06 PM

new_york_monty: cameroncrazy1984: new_york_monty: Because the seized items they took, specifically her documents, were not enumerated in the search warrant and were not illegal. They had no cause to take them without a subpoena. Even if they could argue a reason for taking the FOIAed documents (which is questionable), they had zero cause to take her notes, which are very much protected under the 1st Amendment in her role as a journalist.

And which were returned. Did you miss that part?

Her confidential sources were revealed, and cannot be unrevealed=damages. You seem to have missed that, or are pointedly avoiding it.


If they were FOIA documents, um, they were already revealed.
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report