Skip to comments.DOJ Falsely Claimed That Reporter James Rosen Was Involved In Bombings In Trying To Hide Fact
Posted on 06/14/2013 5:05:02 PM PDT by Nachum
from the whoa dept Okay, here's one that's just crazy. A few weeks ago, lots of folks, including us, covered the story of how the Justice Department claimed to a court that reporter James Rosen was "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a leak of some State Department info concerning North Korea. He was none of the above. He was a reporter, but the DOJ was abusing its power in order to spy on his email and phone records, to try to find the source of the leak. Soon after that, it came out that the DOJ had been working overtime to make sure that the details of the surveillance of Rosen's communications was held under seal.
However, some are noticing an odd statement in the DOJ's filing to try to keep the case under seal. In what is likely a case of an overworked DOJ lawyer just cutting and pasting from a different attempt to keep some surveillance a secret, one of the motions to keep the search warrant sealed falsely claimed that Rosen was involved in a bombing, rather than just disclosing information on North Korea.
(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Looks like we’re all terrorist bombers now.
The old cut and paste document trick.
Well he does have Patriotic leanings so he is an enemy of the State.
Pray for America to Wake Up
I thought Lindsay Graham said if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Gee Lindsay looks like you were INSANE!!!
When is Obama going to start building the “Ovens” or have they already been contracted?
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise. Thanks.
Nah, just a traitor.
OK. This story implies that Rosen was just sitting around one day when some government employee comes up to him and hands him some classified information. It is agreed by all that it is a crime for the employee to do this.
The problem is that this is not what happened. Rosen had an extended relationship with the government employee, with numerous meetings during which they presumably discussed what information the employee should steal for Rosen to publish. I believe this is known as conspiracy to commit a crime. Also accessory before, during and after the fact.
I have yet to see anybody provide any logical reason why Rosen, simply because he is a reporter, is thereby not subject to the same laws as any other American. If I conspire with a government employee to leak classified information, perhaps to a foreign government, I've committed a crime. Under what basis does Rosen's employment as a reporter exempt him from these laws?
Has Rosen or Fox filed a lawsuit yet?
Your comments are exactly why I stick around FR. I get a little closer to the truth.
Has Rosen or Fox filed a lawsuit yet?
Thanks very much! I actually didn’t ask the question out of snarkiness. I really want to know. Is there some part of the Constitution that allows reporters to break laws the rest of us are subject to if they’re doing so trying to get a story?
Note: This is not to say that the particular items leaked aren’t ones the public has a right to know. That’s an entirely separate issue.
So when Obama gave the producers of Zero Dark Thirty acess to classified material was that a conspiracy? And if it was where’s the warrant to hack their emails. How about the NYT and the numerous leaks by them the past 5 yrs. Just asking.
Maybe it was conspiracy on Rosen’s part but it was definately more conservative targeting by a corrupt administration using federal agencies for political ends as evidenced by the outrageous lies to obtain the warrant. Also conspiring to falsify evidence to obtain a warrant might just maybe be a crime in itself.
Someone should go to jail over that one.
All quite possibly true. And all quite irrelevant with regard to whether Rosen actions were criminal.
Presumably is the key word in your statement. Do you know what Rosen did?
His job as a newsman is to dig and ask questions.
Yes, and if he conspires with someone else to commit a crime, it is conspiracy under the law. Exactly as it would be if you or I did exactly the same thing.
Look, I understand it is the job of reporters to get stories. I just don’t understand why actions that would be criminal if taken by you or I are suddenly not criminal just because the perp works for a media outlet. I just don’t see that in the Constitution.
Burglary to get a story is not legal. Neither is blackmail or armed robbery. Why is conspiracy to release classified information legal?
Hope he sues the hell out of them!! Outrageous!
Dan Ellsberg and Anthony Russo say you’re wrong. Remember, no successful prosecutions in the “Pentagon Papers” caper.
Lots of interesting problems in the Rosen case, but “espionage” isn’t one of them. It is a Holder invention because he is incompetent, corrupt, desperate, and has absolutely no morals.
Probably not a mistake. They’ll do anything for power and to destroy their enemies.
Your theory is incorrect. No conspiracy and no theft occurred. From Stephen Kim’s attorney:
On August 27, 2010 the Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys office charged Stephen Kim with illegally disclosing national defense information (classified information) to someone in the media. The government has not alleged that Stephen gave away any document, that he was paid to do anything, that he stole the information, or that he acted in secret. It does not allege that Stephen was a spy or that he acted to assist an enemy of the United States. And, it does not allege that Stephen engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Rather, the case against Stephen Kim seems to be based on a prosecutors theory that Stephen talked to someone in the media about a topic of current events and in that one and only conversation disclosed classified information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.