AP denounces US' seizure of journalists' records

[DinoDoc]

Either he lied to Congress or he lied to the judge.

Here's the reason for that opinion:

Did Eric Holder Commit Perjury? It Looks That Way

As has been widely reported, the affidavit says repeatedly that there is probable cause to believe that Rosen is guilty of a crime, and that his email account will provide evidence of a crime, as well as “fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed.” But the affidavit goes even beyond that. It specifically says that the FBI is looking for evidence of both Kim’s and Rosen’s guilt:

Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.

Emphasis added. But the real clincher is Paragraph 45, which states in part:

Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:

Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the _______@gmail.com account.

So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.

 

[JollyRoger]

Either he lied to Congress or he lied to the judge.

Or he presented a truthful document to the judge that was not intended as a prosecution against a journalist.

As to your other post - look at the word you keep bolding - potential. That does not mean a prosecution is intended. It is just giving a reason that the journalist would not voluntarily hand over items - he would recognize his potential crime once it was asked for. I've got a client right now where we are in talks with the FBI - he is not a target for prosecution, but was subject to a similarly worded warrant. There is certainly potential criminal liability, but he will likely not be indicted or have to do a plea bargain.

 

[_random_]

I'm surprised so many people voted for fascism. That gets a firm no from me!

 

[Cutlass]

I'm surprised so many people voted for fascism. That gets a firm no from me!

Well, despite the fact that all the other scandals got far more attention than this one, this one is actually the important thing.

This scandal is the first time a high Obama official actually did something that heads should roll for. And it should be Holder's head.

 

[_random_]

Oh, I don't disagree. I was just making a joke about the poll's ambiguous wording. To lighten the mood, I guess.

 

[JollyRoger]

Did Holder toss a roll of tape at any journalists?

 

[Cutlass]

Sure. But then he classified the information so it couldn't be printed.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Holder's already been held in contempt from Congress. This is just another example he's bad publicity for Obama. I mean the guy even has democrat congressmen after him as well now, and when you can even rely on your own team to back you that's when something is definitely up.

Warrentless wiretapping is one thing, getting journalist phone records and just the phone records is another thing entirely. While legal thanks to the loose wording of the Patriot Act of 2001. This clearly is an overreach of power.

On the other hand Republicans were remorseless in attacking Obama for leaking information to the press and insisted on Obama administration to crack down on the said leaks to the Press.

Now Republicans have said that what they meant was crack down within the Obama Administration only and no touching the Free Press to plug leaks and that the Patriot Act powers that they voted for was not such a good idea.

 

[RobAnybody]

Agreed. GWB was granted these powers. Many people opposed it at the time. Many people supported it. Who those people were have, I'll grant, kinda swapped positions, based on who is President (not necessarily talking about people on this site, just in general).

It was a power granted by the Patriot Act. So, it's legal. Obama did scale back the powers given by the Patriot Act, but, hey, he kept this one. So, it's legal. It sucks. It shouldn't be legal, but, it's legal. Anyone (again, not people here) who supported granting GWB these powers can't really whine about them now that Obama's using them.

OTOH, those who were against them for GWB shouldn't be for them for Obama. The whole Patriot Act should be repealed, IMO, even the parts kept by Obama. But, it's legal.

 

[Takhisis]

Fascism is much more than this. Yon Feegle above us is right, and yes it's a crap and shouldn't've been done, but people crying 'fascism' anytime they see government intrusion is getting on my nerves.

 

[JollyRoger]

I mean, at least they got a warrant. I was hoping that would have gotten their fascist bang for the buck by some sort of indefinite detention in a FEMA camp.

 

[Takhisis]

Heh, jolly, you sound like the kind of scummy poster who'd establish a difference between 'lawful' and 'legal'.

 

[DinoDoc]

As to your other post - look at the word you keep bolding - potential. That does not mean a prosecution is intended.

Holder testified under oath that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” Are you seriously claiming no contradiction with the facts here?

 

[JollyRoger]

I am claiming that there is a difference between a warrant and a prosecution.

 

[DinoDoc]

I am claiming that there is a difference between a warrant and a prosecution.

If there was no potential for prosecution of the reporter, why would the DoJ describe the reporter as a flight risk to avoid the normal procedure of notifying him?

 

[JollyRoger]

He would take the items subject to the warrantnotification with him.