Ann Shreds This Administration....Again!

[PoliticalChic]

In her recent blog, Lawyer Ann makes the Holder DoJ look totally inept, and takes a shot at "journalists," as well...

Here is part:

"First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet?

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

...journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them.

-- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

 

[Intense]

Journalists all, on every side of the equation need to work on integrity more.

 

[jillian]

why does anyone care what someone who wished a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack has to say?

just wondering.

 

[Intense]

why does anyone care what someone who wished a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack has to say?

just wondering.

Can you link that? First I've heard.

 

[Intense]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ7eusnT9Pk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Liability]

why does anyone care what someone who wished a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack has to say?

just wondering.

Maybe the matters discussed by Ann Coulter are debatable on their own merits and maybe (spit balling this a little) worrying instead about some nasty acidic commentary she might have offered on other topics in the past has nothing at all to do with the merits of the new topic or her arguments on that new topic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In her recent blog, Lawyer Ann makes the Holder DoJ look totally inept, and takes a shot at "journalists," as well...

Here is part:

"First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet?

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

...journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them.

-- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

That law applies to Manning, not the people he gave the documents/information/CDs to. All this does is to prove, yet again, that Ann Coulter is a complete idiot.

I would like to point out that Obama, despite his calls for transparency, has cracked down on leakers harder than any president in history. Bush is supposedly the big bad Nazi in liberal circles, yet most of them say little or nothing about the fact that Obama has filed more criminal cases against whistle blowers than Bush ever did.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In her recent blog, Lawyer Ann makes the Holder DoJ look totally inept, and takes a shot at "journalists," as well...

Here is part:

"First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet?

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

...journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them.

-- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

That law applies to Manning, not the people he gave the documents/information/CDs to. All this does is to prove, yet again, that Ann Coulter is a complete idiot.

I would like to point out that Obama, despite his calls for transparency, has cracked down on leakers harder than any president in history. Bush is supposedly the big bad Nazi in liberal circles, yet most of them say little or nothing about the fact that Obama has filed more criminal cases against whistle blowers than Bush ever did.

Did Assange have "authorized possession"? No? I didn't think so.

 

[elvis]

why does anyone care what someone who wished a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack has to say?

just wondering.

why does anyone care what someone whose mentor said we deserved the attacks says?

 

[jillian]

why does anyone care what someone who wished a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack has to say?

just wondering.

why does anyone care what someone whose mentor said we deserved the attacks says?

you agree with everything anyone you ever respected says?

one of my legal mentors was arrested at the 68 convention.

my father whom i idolize is a neocon.

i figure you can care what i say or not care based on its own merits.

unlike the loon who actually made the statement i said. because to make such a statement someone has to be certifiable.

 

[Intense]

In her recent blog, Lawyer Ann makes the Holder DoJ look totally inept, and takes a shot at "journalists," as well...

Here is part:

"First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet?

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

...journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them.

-- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

That law applies to Manning, not the people he gave the documents/information/CDs to. All this does is to prove, yet again, that Ann Coulter is a complete idiot.

I would like to point out that Obama, despite his calls for transparency, has cracked down on leakers harder than any president in history. Bush is supposedly the big bad Nazi in liberal circles, yet most of them say little or nothing about the fact that Obama has filed more criminal cases against whistle blowers than Bush ever did.

There is whistle blowing and then there's act's to undermine the Republic. If these people are damaging the Republic, he has my admiration for that, if for nothing else.

 

[Liability]

In her recent blog, Lawyer Ann makes the Holder DoJ look totally inept, and takes a shot at "journalists," as well...

Here is part:

"First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet?

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

...journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them.

-- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

That law applies to Manning, not the people he gave the documents/information/CDs to. All this does is to prove, yet again, that Ann Coulter is a complete idiot.

I would like to point out that Obama, despite his calls for transparency, has cracked down on leakers harder than any president in history. Bush is supposedly the big bad Nazi in liberal circles, yet most of them say little or nothing about the fact that Obama has filed more criminal cases against whistle blowers than Bush ever did.

"That" law? She cited two laws. Which one do you contend applies solely to the Private who stole the material? 18 U.S.C. 793(e)? "Whoever having unauthorized possession of . . . " seems on its face to apply to Manning after he took possession of the materials AND to Assange after he accepted them from Manning. Or, 18 USC 641? "any person who 'receives' or 'retains' a 'thing of value of the United States' knowing 'it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted'" Parts of that are clearly applicable to both Manning and Assange.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In her recent blog, Lawyer Ann makes the Holder DoJ look totally inept, and takes a shot at "journalists," as well...

Here is part:

"First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet?

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

...journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them.

-- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

That law applies to Manning, not the people he gave the documents/information/CDs to. All this does is to prove, yet again, that Ann Coulter is a complete idiot.

I would like to point out that Obama, despite his calls for transparency, has cracked down on leakers harder than any president in history. Bush is supposedly the big bad Nazi in liberal circles, yet most of them say little or nothing about the fact that Obama has filed more criminal cases against whistle blowers than Bush ever did.

"That" law? She cited two laws. Which one do you contend applies solely to the Private who stole the material? 18 U.S.C. 793(e)? "Whoever having unauthorized possession of . . . " seems on its face to apply to Manning after he took possession of the materials AND to Assange after he accepted them from Manning. Or, 18 USC 641? "any person who 'receives' or 'retains' a 'thing of value of the United States' knowing 'it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted'" Parts of that are clearly applicable to both Manning and Assange.

Stolen property? Did Assange knowingly receive office supplies that were stolen? Unless you can prove that Manning used a government CD, and that Assange knew that, it is even more worthless than the first law.

 

[California Girl]

why does anyone care what someone who wished a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack has to say?

just wondering.

Is this in the same way that you claimed that Beck 'hates' the victims of 9/11? Cuz that wasn't true either. It was taken out of context - as I pointed out when I provided the context. So, in order for me to critically assess the claim about wishing a presidential candidate dead in a terrorist attack, I would need to see what she actually said, and not some left wing spin.