Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a “covert communications plan” and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information.
In the exchange, Rosen used the alias “Leo” to address Kim and called himself “Alex,” an apparent reference to Alexander Butterfield, the man best known for running the secret recording system in the Nixon White House, according to the affidavit.
Rosen instructed Kim to send him coded signals on his Google account, according to a quote from his e-mail in the affidavit: “One asterisk means to contact them, or that previously suggested plans for communication are to proceed as agreed; two asterisks means the opposite.”
He also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”
Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report
Heads on both sides should roll for this. Mr Kim's for leaking national security information unto the press and Rosen for conspiring to break the law.
Nonsense, not how it works here. If you want that take it to some stalinist country.
I agree Kim should go down for leaking the info, part of his sworn position is to keep that material to himself and other authorized individuals. But Rosen? By intent and letter of the Constitution he was doing exactly his job.
How do you sleep at night defending a man who knowingly lied to the faces of grieving families as they sat next to the coffins of their loved ones?
Freedom of the press is not freedom to conspire to a crime.
Pretty well, thank you. I usually have a cup of warm green tea, that just sets the mood for a good sleep.
In this specific context it is as that "crime" is not a crime for the reporter but a constitutionally protected act.
So you support knowingly lying to the faces of grieving families after their loved ones were murdered by terrorists. Deaths that could have been prevented.
Clearly there is no level of corruption and thuggery committed by this administration you won't support and rationalize
Conspiring to obtain national security information is NOT constitutionally protected. If it were Bradley Manning wouldn't be sitting in jail right now and Peter T. King (Republican) wouldn't be calling for the prosecution of Julian Assange (a foreigner) under the Espionage Act.
Can I suggest some brands of green tea? They'll help you sleep at night and not try and derail threads with your nonsense.
Wrong on all counts. Manning, like Kim, had a different duty under law and constitution. They are both on the hook legally. Assange is a foreign national receiving classified information that put currently deployed US assets at risk - precisely what the FISA and the PA were written to address. A US reporter reporting on information obtained doesn't fit in with any of your examples.
He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it.
You're flat out wrong. Thank goodness too. Your strawman won't work here, there was no blackmail involved.
The reporter asked the official the questions and got the answers. The official broke the law by answering the reporter, the reporter did not break the law by asking the questions or reporting on the answers.
He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it. If he had simply gathered the information from somebody who leaked it, he'd have no legal issues, however the article makes it clear that he enticed somebody to break the law in order to gather information. Again, not constitutionally protected.
Moderator's Warning: |
You're flat out wrong. Thank goodness too. Your strawman won't work here, there was no blackmail involved. The reporter asked the official the questions and got the answers. The official broke the law by answering the reporter, the reporter did not break the law by asking the questions or reporting on the answers.
That's a pretty poor analogy.
Blackmail is illegal in and of itself. Asking someone for something is not.
He conspired for somebody to break the law, that's not constitutionally protected. Which kind of shows why he had to use "coded" signals in order to get the information he wanted. If he wasn't breaking the law in ANY way, why the secrecy?
He conspired for somebody to break the law, that's not constitutionally protected. Which kind of shows why he had to use "coded" signals in order to get the information he wanted. If he wasn't breaking the law in ANY way, why the secrecy?
Depends on what you're asking. Enticing somebody to break the law is considered conspiracy at the very least.
Apparently you did not read the article. Or you would realize that it contains, and uses, the word allegation. Given Ainta Dunn and Mr. Axelrod's preoccupation with Fox News, outright calls for a so called "war" on it, plus the fact that DOJ spent most of 2012 hacking Rosen's emails, phone calls and following him in and out of the country? They have come up with only an "allegation" and frankly to all but the Fox News obsessed it looks like what has always been normal investigative techniques are now suddenly supposed to be illegal. Olivier Knox at Yahoo News (who professes to being a friend of Rosen’s) minces no words in his report, calling the DOJ’s treatment of the Fox reporter “a chilling move sure to rile defenders of civil liberties.” ”The details of the government’s strategy against Rosen sound like something out of a spy novel,” writes Knox, who observes that Rosen’s alleged offenses “fall inside the bounds of traditional news reporting.”He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it.
Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report
Heads on both sides should roll for this. Mr Kim's for leaking national security information unto the press and Rosen for conspiring to break the law.
You're the one defending thuggery and corruption here
Where was Obama during the 7 hour Benghazi attack? Where was he and what was he doing? If Benghazi is the new Birther movement, tell us where Obama was and what was he doing.
Tell us the crime committed by Rosen here. He's a journalist soliciting information. The Government seized his personal emails and private communications. You're defending that. Why?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?