FACT: Law did not require Rosen be given notice

[Crackerjaxon]

Oh my ******* god you are stupid. Yes the LAW applies to the PRESS you ******* idiot.

My, that puts the US Code in conflict with the First Amendment, doesn't it, oh brilliant one?

I dunno Chief Justice Crackhead, where does the 1st amendment say reporters are immune from the law?

Here, read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What part of Congress shall make no law confuses you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My, that puts the US Code in conflict with the First Amendment, doesn't it, oh brilliant one?

I dunno Chief Justice Crackhead, where does the 1st amendment say reporters are immune from the law?

Here, read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What part of Congress shall make no law confuses you?

It doesn't confuse me one bit. What confuses me is that you could construe the language of the 1st amendment to mean that journalists are immune from the law.

 

[Stephanie]

such a joke, .....anything the Washingtoncompost prints now should be ignored....
Links in article at site

SNIP:
WaPo After Their Off-The-Record Meeting With Holder: The Justice Department Has Allowed Us To Say Holder Supports Press Freedom…


Washington Post: The Justice Department has allowed us to say AG Holder supports press freedom

May 31, 2013 | 11:00 am | Modified: May 31, 2013 at 11:20 am
97Comments 39 Share on print Share on email

Senior Editorial Writer
The Washington Examiner
✉ Email Author E@seanghiggins





As The Washington Examiner‘s own Susan Ferrechio reports Friday most news organizations boycotted on principle Attorney General Eric Holder’s offer to join a press conference Thursday in which he discussed the Obama’s White House various efforts to monitor, intimidate and harass journalists. Holder’s condition was that the meeting be “off the record,” meaning none of the reporters would be allowed to report what was said at the meeting.

Among those who did attend was the Washington Post. Today’s Post has an account of the meeting — sort of. That is, they have a story about what the Justice Department allowed them to say about its efforts to protect press freedom. The result is just beyond parody (All emphasis is added):

all of it here
Washington Post: The Justice Department has allowed us to say AG Holder supports press freedom | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Holder’s condition was that the meeting be “off the record,” meaning none of the reporters would be allowed to report what was said at the meeting.

They should feel honored their government is willing to share state secrets with them.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Holder’s condition was that the meeting be “off the record,” meaning none of the reporters would be allowed to report what was said at the meeting.

They should feel honored their government is willing to share state secrets with them.

The press' job is to expose govt corruption...not feel honored when theyre in bed together. Again, you come down on the side of needing to be ruled by someone.

 

[Stephanie]

Holder’s condition was that the meeting be “off the record,” meaning none of the reporters would be allowed to report what was said at the meeting.

They should feel honored their government is willing to share state secrets with them.

they should feel honored huh?
you are twisted..but a good comrade. All hale the government..they good no matter what they do..................... it's for YOUR GOOD,

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Holder’s condition was that the meeting be “off the record,” meaning none of the reporters would be allowed to report what was said at the meeting.

They should feel honored their government is willing to share state secrets with them.

The press' job is to expose govt corruption...not feel honored when theyre in bed together.

I'm not sure what bed they are being asked to get in, but if they want to know the real reasons their phone records were seized they are free to get told in private.

Again, you come down on the side of needing to be ruled by someone.

What the hell are you even talking about?

 

[bendog]

I dunno Chief Justice Crackhead, where does the 1st amendment say reporters are immune from the law?

Here, read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What part of Congress shall make no law confuses you?

It doesn't confuse me one bit. What confuses me is that you could construe the language of the 1st amendment to mean that journalists are immune from the law.

What law did Holder think the reporter violated?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Here, read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What part of Congress shall make no law confuses you?

It doesn't confuse me one bit. What confuses me is that you could construe the language of the 1st amendment to mean that journalists are immune from the law.

What law did Holder think the reporter violated?

You can read about it right here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/kim/warrant.pdf

#5 at the top of page three. Conspiracy to violate 18 USC 793(d). See (g) of the same

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

If the Reporter asked Kim to improperly distribute classified material to him, Kim is the primacy actor of the conspiracy since he is the one with the security clearance, but the Reporter is a co-conspirator. As discussed in the warrant application, the Reporter had substantial contact with Kim, was on the phone with Kim at the same time Kim was taking the information, and then later that same day published it. If that's not probable cause for a search then what the **** is?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They should feel honored their government is willing to share state secrets with them.

The press' job is to expose govt corruption...not feel honored when theyre in bed together.

I'm not sure what bed they are being asked to get in, but if they want to know the real reasons their phone records were seized they are free to get told in private.

Again, you come down on the side of needing to be ruled by someone.

What the hell are you even talking about?

....."they should feel honored their govt is willing".... We elect these fools. They answer to us not vice versa.

 

[bendog]

It doesn't confuse me one bit. What confuses me is that you could construe the language of the 1st amendment to mean that journalists are immune from the law.

What law did Holder think the reporter violated?

You can read about it right here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/kim/warrant.pdf

#5 at the top of page three. Conspiracy to violate 18 USC 793(d). See (g) of the same

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

If the Reporter asked Kim to improperly distribute classified material to him, Kim is the primacy actor of the conspiracy since he is the one with the security clearance, but the Reporter is a co-conspirator. As discussed in the warrant application, the Reporter had substantial contact with Kim, was on the phone with Kim at the same time Kim was taking the information, and then later that same day published it. If that's not probable cause for a search then what the **** is?

So when a reporter uses a source to learn information that is "top secret" inorder to report this information to the public at large, he is "conspiring" to violate the law? Are you really thinking that line is gonna get traction? Seriously. Pentagon Papers, Iran Contra, Judith Miller/Scooter Libby ..... does any of that ring a bell?

 

[PredFan]

One would think that if Holder broke no law or committed nothing improper, then he would have told the truth instead of lying.