4 ms·

Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight. Can Fox Ne

by jbooth 13y ago

Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight. Can Fox News sue here? It seems like calling him a co-conspirator (aka journalist) just to get the search warrant with no plans to charge him is super fishy. And even more puzzling than Holder's actions, why isn't Fox News trumpeting this instead of Benghazi?

skylan_q 13y ago
Nothing they do makes any sense. The ruling elite live in a different world from us commoners. Holder probably thought people would view him as a hero or something.
rayiner 13y ago
There was a warrant, so I'm not sure what lack of court oversight you're talking about.
- sigzero 13y ago
  That they "lied" or at least tried to change the rules to get the warrant?
- jbooth 13y ago
  Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretending it's gone. Seems to me like in order to contradict that previous ruling you should be going to the Supreme Court. I also think it's sketchy as hell to name someone as a 'co-conspirator' in a leak case for being a journalist who was leaked to. That's not conspiracy, it's doing their job with protection from the first amendment.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tss20147 13y ago
    They aren't pretending it's gone. There is a difference between a journalist passively receiving classified material which a source decides to provide them and a journalist actively soliciting a source to provide classified material. The government has a reasonable argument that a journalist actively soliciting for classified material may be in violation of the law and not protected under the first amendment. This has not been settled by case law and the judge which signed off on the search warrant agreed with the government that the journalist may be a co-conspirator.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Thanks, I hadn't thought about it that way. Still disagree with it and all that but at least it makes some amount of sense that they were able to pull it off now.
mtgx 13y ago
There was an article on BI a few days ago saying how "Americans don't care" about the AP spying (from a survey), and that they cared a lot more about IRS and Benghazi. But let's put things in context. The IRS scandal, and especially the Benghazi one, have been trumpeted at least 10x more than the AP one. Maybe 100x more. With such "awareness campaign" is it really a surprise most people responded in the surveys with IRS or Benghazi? So what this really means is that the media themselves don't really care about the AP spying - which is actually quite frightening, and a worse situation than I thought. You'd think they would want to turn this into another Watergate or something - but apparently not. Same for the Fox News journalist. These two stories would be reason enough to call for the impeachment of the president in my book. I mean it threatens a core power in the society - the press. The Benghazi story, and even the IRS one to "some" degree, are the real distractions here.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Yeah, I hate that circular logic. Americans drink more coke than pepsi, look at the advertising budgets. You hammer something on prime time every night for 6 months and people will think it's a bigger deal than the story you don't. There's not an actual scandal behind Benghazi. Literally none. They're alleging a cover-up, "of what?", "they're covering it up!". That's the whole story and somehow it's 6 months of airtime. The IRS story is just bad CYA by the administrators there. Political groups applying for charity status is in fact something that the IRS should be auditing and cracking down on, regardless of political party, and there were a lot of tea party groups applying for charity status -- The dept head was actually a Bush appointee, they just weren't tactful enough about how they set their filters to make it look more bipartisan. This leak case, on the other hand, is actual erosion of press freedoms. And the media (?!?!?!!) seem to care the least about it.
  - shardling 13y ago
    Well, the New Yorker has been printing exactly your stance on this, so at least some elements of the media care. :)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

by jbooth 13y ago

skylan_q 13y ago

Nothing they do makes any sense. The ruling elite live in a different world from us commoners. Holder probably thought people would view him as a hero or something.

rayiner 13y ago

There was a warrant, so I'm not sure what lack of court oversight you're talking about.

sigzero 13y ago
That they "lied" or at least tried to change the rules to get the warrant?
jbooth 13y ago
Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretending it's gone. Seems to me like in order to contradict that previous ruling you should be going to the Supreme Court. I also think it's sketchy as hell to name someone as a 'co-conspirator' in a leak case for being a journalist who was leaked to. That's not conspiracy, it's doing their job with protection from the first amendment.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tss20147 13y ago
  They aren't pretending it's gone. There is a difference between a journalist passively receiving classified material which a source decides to provide them and a journalist actively soliciting a source to provide classified material. The government has a reasonable argument that a journalist actively soliciting for classified material may be in violation of the law and not protected under the first amendment. This has not been settled by case law and the judge which signed off on the search warrant agreed with the government that the journalist may be a co-conspirator.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Thanks, I hadn't thought about it that way. Still disagree with it and all that but at least it makes some amount of sense that they were able to pull it off now.

mtgx 13y ago

There was an article on BI a few days ago saying how "Americans don't care" about the AP spying (from a survey), and that they cared a lot more about IRS and Benghazi. But let's put things in context. The IRS scandal, and especially the Benghazi one, have been trumpeted at least 10x more than the AP one. Maybe 100x more. With such "awareness campaign" is it really a surprise most people responded in the surveys with IRS or Benghazi? So what this really means is that the media themselves don't really care about the AP spying - which is actually quite frightening, and a worse situation than I thought. You'd think they would want to turn this into another Watergate or something - but apparently not. Same for the Fox News journalist. These two stories would be reason enough to call for the impeachment of the president in my book. I mean it threatens a core power in the society - the press. The Benghazi story, and even the IRS one to "some" degree, are the real distractions here.

jbooth 13y ago
Yeah, I hate that circular logic. Americans drink more coke than pepsi, look at the advertising budgets. You hammer something on prime time every night for 6 months and people will think it's a bigger deal than the story you don't. There's not an actual scandal behind Benghazi. Literally none. They're alleging a cover-up, "of what?", "they're covering it up!". That's the whole story and somehow it's 6 months of airtime. The IRS story is just bad CYA by the administrators there. Political groups applying for charity status is in fact something that the IRS should be auditing and cracking down on, regardless of political party, and there were a lot of tea party groups applying for charity status -- The dept head was actually a Bush appointee, they just weren't tactful enough about how they set their filters to make it look more bipartisan. This leak case, on the other hand, is actual erosion of press freedoms. And the media (?!?!?!!) seem to care the least about it.
- shardling 13y ago
  Well, the New Yorker has been printing exactly your stance on this, so at least some elements of the media care. :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]