Associated Press Confirms U S Government Seized Journalists' Phone Records

[snarky66]

Based upon the new revelations about James Rosen at FOX (ok some judge improperly signed some warrant} allow me to gaze into my crystal ball.

Holder will be going to prision.

[Publicus]

Based upon the new revelations about James Rosen at FOX (ok some judge improperly signed some warrant} allow me to gaze into my crystal ball.

Holder will be going to prision.

When will Fox or the AP - or both - file suit in U.S. District Court against the Justice Department? Anyone can sue the Justice Department.

Prez Obama is prohibited by law from contacting the AG about this or any other legal matter in progress. Congress can't do anything except eventually hold hearings - AG Holder is scheduled to appear routinely fairly soon and he'll be questioned then.

What is the Precedent Here?

Harvard's Digital Media Law Project has compared some relevant case law and legislation. Here's a summary:

• Zurcher v. Stanford Daily: In 1971, when the Stanford Daily's office was raided by police seeking information on a recent campus demonstration, the students sued under the First and Fourth and First Amendments. The Supreme Court eventually ruled 5-3 that the search was constitutional.
• In response to the Stanford Daily case, Congress passed the Privacy Protection Act, which “creates protections against searches for the work product or other documents” of journalists. The Digital Media Law Project notes that “the provisions of the PPA ... do not apply to records in the possession of third parties, such as the telephone records.”
• Smith v. Maryland: In this 1979 decision, the Supreme Court found that people have no expectation of privacy when it comes to the numbers they call because they understand it has to be transmitted through a third party (the telephone company). The Digital Media Law Project notes that “the government can obtain that information simply by issuing a subpoena to a telephone company or other third party.”

Worse for the media, in the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a journalist is not protected from confidentiality when the journalist has knowledge of a criminal act and/or its perpetrator(s), or is a witness to a criminal act.

The media is kind of stuck on this one.

And I'm quite taken to see all the minutemen at TVF defending the press/media. I'd thought the wingnuts considered the mass news media to be a bunch of lefties who were the collective enemy.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Publicus

[chuckd]

Based upon the new revelations about James Rosen at FOX (ok some judge improperly signed some warrant} allow me to gaze into my crystal ball.

Holder will be going to prision.

When will Fox or the AP - or both - file suit in U.S. District Court against the Justice Department? Anyone can sue the Justice Department.

Prez Obama is prohibited by law from contacting the AG about this or any other legal matter in progress. Congress can't do anything except eventually hold hearings - AG Holder is scheduled to appear routinely fairly soon and he'll be questioned then.

What is the Precedent Here?

Harvard's Digital Media Law Project has compared some relevant case law and legislation. Here's a summary:

• Zurcher v. Stanford Daily: In 1971, when the Stanford Daily's office was raided by police seeking information on a recent campus demonstration, the students sued under the First and Fourth and First Amendments. The Supreme Court eventually ruled 5-3 that the search was constitutional.
• In response to the Stanford Daily case, Congress passed the Privacy Protection Act, which “creates protections against searches for the work product or other documents” of journalists. The Digital Media Law Project notes that “the provisions of the PPA ... do not apply to records in the possession of third parties, such as the telephone records.”
• Smith v. Maryland: In this 1979 decision, the Supreme Court found that people have no expectation of privacy when it comes to the numbers they call because they understand it has to be transmitted through a third party (the telephone company). The Digital Media Law Project notes that “the government can obtain that information simply by issuing a subpoena to a telephone company or other third party.”

Worse for the media, in the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a journalist is not protected from confidentiality when the journalist has knowledge of a criminal act and/or its perpetrator(s), or is a witness to a criminal act.

The media is kind of stuck on this one.

And I'm quite taken to see all the minutemen at TVF defending the press/media. I'd thought the wingnuts considered the mass news media to be a bunch of lefties who were the collective enemy.

The liberal mass media is still the enemy, unless they come to their senses on what is going on with this administration.

Defending the Constitution does not make one a "minuteman".

Rosen was called a "possible" co-defendant" in order to obtain the search warrants. I wonder how Rosen's parents were described. Notice no indictments have ever been issued against either James Rosen or his parents as a result of this fishing expedition.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/05/21/Fox-News-DOJ-Seized-Rosen-Parents-Records

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/21/Report-DOJ-Seized-Records-of-Five-Fox-News-Phone-Records

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and yet another twist and turn in this scandal...again they seem to be blaming incompetency.

Judge apologizes for lack of transparency in James Rosen leak probe

By Ann E. Marimow, Updated: Thursday, May 23, 4:37 AM

The chief judge of the District’s federal court issued an unusual order Wednesday, apologizing to the public and the media for not making certain court documents widely available online.

The gesture of transparency by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth comes at a time when the Obama administration is under scrutiny for an unprecedented number of leak investigations, including one showing that the Justice Department had secretly probed the news-gathering activities of Fox News reporter James Rosen.

The investigation of Rosen was first reported Monday, after The Washington Post obtained court documents containing details of the case.

A federal judge had ordered the documents unsealed in November 2011, but they were kept sealed for 18 months and not posted on the court’s online docket until last week, after The Post inquired about them.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-apologizes-for-lack-of-transparency-in-leak-case/2013/05/22/ad769370-c308-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

[Publicus]

Based upon the new revelations about James Rosen at FOX (ok some judge improperly signed some warrant} allow me to gaze into my crystal ball.

Holder will be going to prision.

When will Fox or the AP - or both - file suit in U.S. District Court against the Justice Department? Anyone can sue the Justice Department.

Prez Obama is prohibited by law from contacting the AG about this or any other legal matter in progress. Congress can't do anything except eventually hold hearings - AG Holder is scheduled to appear routinely fairly soon and he'll be questioned then.

What is the Precedent Here?

Harvard's Digital Media Law Project has compared some relevant case law and legislation. Here's a summary:

• Zurcher v. Stanford Daily: In 1971, when the Stanford Daily's office was raided by police seeking information on a recent campus demonstration, the students sued under the First and Fourth and First Amendments. The Supreme Court eventually ruled 5-3 that the search was constitutional.
• In response to the Stanford Daily case, Congress passed the Privacy Protection Act, which “creates protections against searches for the work product or other documents” of journalists. The Digital Media Law Project notes that “the provisions of the PPA ... do not apply to records in the possession of third parties, such as the telephone records.”
• Smith v. Maryland: In this 1979 decision, the Supreme Court found that people have no expectation of privacy when it comes to the numbers they call because they understand it has to be transmitted through a third party (the telephone company). The Digital Media Law Project notes that “the government can obtain that information simply by issuing a subpoena to a telephone company or other third party.”

Worse for the media, in the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a journalist is not protected from confidentiality when the journalist has knowledge of a criminal act and/or its perpetrator(s), or is a witness to a criminal act.

The media is kind of stuck on this one.

And I'm quite taken to see all the minutemen at TVF defending the press/media. I'd thought the wingnuts considered the mass news media to be a bunch of lefties who were the collective enemy.

The liberal mass media is still the enemy, unless they come to their senses on what is going on with this administration.

Defending the Constitution does not make one a "minuteman".

Rosen was called a "possible" co-defendant" in order to obtain the search warrants. I wonder how Rosen's parents were described. Notice no indictments have ever been issued against either James Rosen or his parents as a result of this fishing expedition.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/05/21/Fox-News-DOJ-Seized-Rosen-Parents-Records

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/21/Report-DOJ-Seized-Records-of-Five-Fox-News-Phone-Records

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and yet another twist and turn in this scandal...again they seem to be blaming incompetency.

Judge apologizes for lack of transparency in James Rosen leak probe

By Ann E. Marimow, Updated: Thursday, May 23, 4:37 AM

The chief judge of the District’s federal court issued an unusual order Wednesday, apologizing to the public and the media for not making certain court documents widely available online.

The gesture of transparency by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth comes at a time when the Obama administration is under scrutiny for an unprecedented number of leak investigations, including one showing that the Justice Department had secretly probed the news-gathering activities of Fox News reporter James Rosen.

The investigation of Rosen was first reported Monday, after The Washington Post obtained court documents containing details of the case.

A federal judge had ordered the documents unsealed in November 2011, but they were kept sealed for 18 months and not posted on the court’s online docket until last week, after The Post inquired about them.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-apologizes-for-lack-of-transparency-in-leak-case/2013/05/22/ad769370-c308-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

If anyone at the court defied the judge's instructions or order, they need to be held accountable.

You guys are minutemen to me because of your rapid fire posts, shot off in bunches, within a minute or minutes of an opposition - enemy - post.

[StevenGerrard]

If their is anything wrong then no prob.

What does that mean?

mean if that person is wrong then there is not any prob to do query with him. Because this is question for a Country not for Personal.

[lomatopo]

Retired General Target of Stuxnet Leak Investigation

June 28, 2013

U.S. media report that a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is under investigation for allegedly leaking classified information about a secret cyberattack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

NBC News and The Washington Post said that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating retired Marine General James Cartwright for allegations that he provided reporters with information about the covert computer virus, Stuxnet.

http://www.voanews.com/content/retired-general-target-of-stuxnet-leak-investigation/1690953.html