Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deputy AG Won’t Rule Out Considering Publishing of Classified Information a Crime for Journalists
CNS News ^ | 08/07/2017 | Melanie Arter

Posted on 08/07/2017 3:37:35 PM PDT by ForYourChildren

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would not rule out the possibility that a reporter publishing classified information could be considered a crime.

Speaking to “Fox News Sunday,” Rosenstein told host Chris Wallace that “generally speaking, reporters who publish information are not committing a crime, but there might be a circumstance where they do.”

“You know, I haven’t seen any of those today, but I wouldn’t rule it out in the event that there were a case where a reporter was purposely violating the law, then they might be a suspect as well, but that’s not our goal here. Our goal is to prevent the leaks, and so, that’s what we’re after here. We haven’t revised a policy with regard to reporters,” he said.

{..snip..}

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agsessions; crime; enemywithin; leaks; msm; rodrosenstein; trumpdoj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 08/07/2017 3:37:35 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Rosenstein can’t make something a crime or not. He can only prosecute or not.

Guy thinks he’s king.


2 posted on 08/07/2017 3:39:17 PM PDT by JamesP81 (The DNC poses a greater threat to my liberty than terrorists, China, and Russia. Combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Are reporters smart enough to read that as a veiled threat? Because that’s what I heard.


3 posted on 08/07/2017 3:40:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Dear NYT & WaPo....Don’t do the crime, if you are not willing to do the time.
Regards,
Law abiding citizen.


4 posted on 08/07/2017 3:42:33 PM PDT by ptsal ( Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - M. Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Yeah, Rosenstein, we wouldn’t want to actually stop the leaks. We’d rather pretend that we’re doing something about it.


5 posted on 08/07/2017 3:46:08 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Not a threat. He is warning his media associates that he may not have any leeway to cover for them in the future.


6 posted on 08/07/2017 3:46:33 PM PDT by DrDude (Clinton/Awan/Huma/Obama all are tied together in Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Are reporters smart enough to read that as a veiled threat? Because that’s what I heard.”

I don’t think so. This was a head fake to Trump. The whole thing was a CYA. Wallace never asked what he thought of Mueller obvious conflict or the fact Mueller has filled his staff with Rat Mercenaries. Rosenstein said oh yeah Meuller has limits which is BS. Rosenstein should be fired. Period.


7 posted on 08/07/2017 3:49:40 PM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
“You know, I haven’t seen any of those today, but I wouldn’t rule it out in the event that there were a case where a reporter was purposely violating the law, then they might be a suspect as well, but that’s not our goal here. Our goal is to prevent the leaks, and so, that’s what we’re after here. We haven’t revised a policy with regard to reporters,” he said.

If somebody purposely violates the law, Rosenstein thinks the law breaker "might be a suspect"?

Rosenstein is NOT the right person for the job.

8 posted on 08/07/2017 3:50:38 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

a reporter writes.

a publisher publishes.

Serve a warrant and search the places for weeks on end with all who work there excluded from the premises


9 posted on 08/07/2017 3:50:49 PM PDT by Thibodeaux (Democrat calls for kumbaya must be met with their blood on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

I dont get the point of this whole ####ing article.

IT IS A CRIME AND PUT THEM IN JAIL!!


10 posted on 08/07/2017 3:51:21 PM PDT by dp0622 (The Left should know that if Trump is kicked out of office, it is WAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Uh, most current journalists and news organizations are part of an active collusion and conspiracy to destroy the US gov’t via Trump. send them a message.


11 posted on 08/07/2017 3:56:32 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

The anecdote that free speech ends when shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre seems to not take hold with the MSM. If a paper publishes troop movements or other state secrets, especially to simply embarrass the current occupant of the White Crib, should be the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.


12 posted on 08/07/2017 3:56:46 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Rosenstein and Sessions are going to talk us to death if they’re not careful.


13 posted on 08/07/2017 3:56:56 PM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Inernet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

The SCOTUS already ruled on this issue. That’s why Daniel Ellsberg went to Federal prison, but none of the journalists involved kept him company.


14 posted on 08/07/2017 4:08:07 PM PDT by sourcery (Non Acquiescit: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

In the Landmark New York Times vs United States in 1971, the USSC ruled that PRIOR RESTRAINT (the prevention of publication) was forbidden by the Constitution.

It was silent on the matter of whether the NYT or Wapo could be charged under the Espionage Act (section 973 if I remember correctly) for publishing the classified info.

The Nixon admin declined to bring charges.


15 posted on 08/07/2017 4:15:24 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

“The SCOTUS already ruled on this issue.”

No, they haven’t. See my above post.

They have only ruled on the issue of Prior Restraint, and the ruling was silent on whether publication could be a crime.


16 posted on 08/07/2017 4:20:31 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

The fact you can’t understand the law and/or simple logic is your problem, not mine. It’s logically and legally impossible for that which the First Amendment defines as rightful to also be criminal after the fact. Exercising a right — especially one explicitly enumerated in the Constitution — can never be criminal after the fact. Otherwise, it would have to be the case that the government could convict you of murder, but not stop the murder before it was committed.

The freedom to publish but still be criminally convicted for having published is logically absurd. It would make the First Amendment completely meaningless. If your interpretation were correct, then all speech could be criminalized, but not prevented in advance.

Hogwash.


17 posted on 08/07/2017 4:50:17 PM PDT by sourcery (Non Acquiescit: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Isn’t it already a crime?


18 posted on 08/07/2017 5:55:50 PM PDT by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Let’s say a bank robber happens to turn over his cash to someone else not connected with the robbery. Does that person get to keep the cash? I want some legal mind to explain the difference.


19 posted on 08/07/2017 5:58:12 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Leaking classified info is a crime but publishing is not
Makes no sense


20 posted on 08/07/2017 6:11:45 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson